Obama Now Has the Power to Appoint 93 Federal Judges

[P@triot]

The present people controlling the GOP see the world through their ideological glasses. Glasses which fade out reality. They simply cannot believe that anyone can see any issue in a differant light than they do. So when the inevitable reaction takes place against the idiocy they display, they are totally surprised. Clueless, feckless, and really kind of stupid is the best description of these people.

Tell us again @Old Rocks? Please? So you can illustrate for the world a second time just how insanely fuck'n ignorant you really are...

[ame=http://youtu.be/r-nZJ0flnQU]Best Of Harry Reid Opposing Nuclear Option. Harry Reid Compilation - YouTube[/ame]

You just can not make this shit up! These people lack any semblence of integrity what so ever. It makes me wonder if they're even human! I mean, how can you stand there and rail against the very thing you later set out to do? Could it be Reid wanted "total power" in the senate? As he said back when thsi issue came up during the democrats turn to fillibust and block republican appointments?

Fucking complete hypocrites. The fact they dont even care about being hypocrits is extremely telling.

Isn't that unbelievable TSAB?!? How are they not humiliated at their own words? I would be absolutely mortified if I were on national television contradicting myself. I would realize at that moment that I was a laughing stock with zero credibility left for the rest of my life.

And yet Obama, Biden, and Reid just keep on going! I would add Pelosi, but she actually is bothered by her hypocrisy. Rather than stopping it though - or apologizing for it - she gets really angry when it's brought up (evidence at least that she's effected by it).

 

[candycorn]

So..I gather was the conservatives are saying is..

Majority Rule in the House = Good.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

Why is that?

Different rules in the House and Senate. I don't think there should be different rules but there are...or at least were.

Simple majorities are good and I think better than super majorities

I'll give you an analogy.

If you and your wife are considering making a big purchase; let's say a security system for your house and you need it pretty badly due to a break-in next door. It's going to cost $3,000.

If you have $50K in the bank; not a problem. Sign the check.

If you don't have $50K in the bank and are in debt, lets say $17T in debt, that $3,000 is problematic. But you have good income but each year you spend about $1T more than you take in. That $3K is still needed but it's got to come from somewhere.

You think it should come from sacrificing Junior's braces
She thinks it should come from not buying beef for 6 months

In the past, what would happen is you may get Junior only the bottom teeth straightened this year and the uppers done next year and not buy beef for 3 months instead of six.

If you had total say (or if your wife did), there is now no need to negotiate since the rules have changed.

The point is that majority rule is great when there is largess and plenty. When tough decisions are to be made (and we have a shit load of them upcoming), paper thin majorities that give you 100% of what you want are likely not the smartest way to get there from here.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Tell us again @Old Rocks? Please? So you can illustrate for the world a second time just how insanely fuck'n ignorant you really are...

Best Of Harry Reid Opposing Nuclear Option. Harry Reid Compilation - YouTube

You just can not make this shit up! These people lack any semblence of integrity what so ever. It makes me wonder if they're even human! I mean, how can you stand there and rail against the very thing you later set out to do? Could it be Reid wanted "total power" in the senate? As he said back when thsi issue came up during the democrats turn to fillibust and block republican appointments?

Fucking complete hypocrites. The fact they dont even care about being hypocrits is extremely telling.

Isn't that unbelievable TSAB?!? How are they not humiliated at their own words? I would be absolutely mortified if I were on national television contradicting myself. I would realize at that moment that I was a laughing stock with zero credibility left for the rest of my life.

And yet Obama, Biden, and Reid just keep on going! I would add Pelosi, but she actually is bothered by her hypocrisy. Rather than stopping it though - or apologizing for it - she gets really angry when it's brought up (evidence at least that she's effected by it).

It takes a true sociopath to be uneffected by being a laughing stock without any credibility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our political landscape has changed since 2005. We now have a minority party intent on blocking all functions of government. To allow the childish temper tantrums of Republicans to continue over an arcane Senatorial process is unwarranted

Republicans abused their right to filibuster and it was taken away. They were warned repeatedly and somehow thought they could continue

5 years of filibustering everything you try, I would say enough is enough ...

Of course you would Hitler. You're pissed off (like ALL Dumbocrats) that having the majority in one chamber does not equal DICTATORIAL CONTROL. Which is all you little Nazi's have ever wanted and part of the reason you guys have always hated America - the balance of power.

The Constitution puts the power of judicial nominee approval in the hands of one chamber, the Senate.

If the President and a majority in the Senate should not have the power to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

Why is that so hard for you to answer?

 

[Sallow]

Tell us again @Old Rocks? Please? So you can illustrate for the world a second time just how insanely fuck'n ignorant you really are...

Best Of Harry Reid Opposing Nuclear Option. Harry Reid Compilation - YouTube

And?

Democrats compromised and let Bush get his judicial appointments after that.

They didn't require 60 votes for every single piece of legislation either.

What do you mean "and"? Obviously Swallow didn't watch the video before commenting on it. Why am I not shocked that he's responding from a place of pure, unadulterated ignorance?

Harry Reid is on record as stating what a bad idea the "nuclear option" is. So then why did he lead the charge for the "nuclear option"? Oops!

Listen, I already have said no to your homosexual offer to swallow my jiz. It's not going to happen.

And "context" is not something you have any idea about.

You can't take a procedure meant to be used in extraordinary circumstances, and use to to stop government..and then expect that procedure to survive.

It's the difference between a camp fire and a forest fire, faggot.

Or in your case, a one on one and a Homo train. Although I don't think you've ever done the one on one thing..you are always on the train.

 

[TooTall]

You people are incapable of common sense. The Senate could go for a decade or more without either party having a supermajority;

the Republicans have proven they are willing to block judges indefinitely, so if the Democrats had 41 to 49 Senators, they could return the favor by blocking a Republican president's appointments indefinitely.

10 or 20 years could pass without any judges being apppointed, despite having the 51% or more votes to pass.

Who thinks that is how our Constitution is supposed to work?

Of course they could have done what they did in 2005.

In the Bush administration, Democratic senators effectively filibustered against several judicial nominations. In 2005, a group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans - dubbed the "Gang of 14" - got together to reduce filibusters for judicial nominees. The Democrats agreed not to filibuster against several nominees, while Republicans ended efforts to rule filibusters unconstitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

So..I gather was the conservatives are saying is..

Majority Rule in the House = Good.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

Why is that?

Here's what I'm saying:

Majority Rule in the House = Bad.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

 

[Sallow]

So..I gather was the conservatives are saying is..

Majority Rule in the House = Good.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

Why is that?

Different rules in the House and Senate. I don't think there should be different rules but there are...or at least were.

Simple majorities are good and I think better than super majorities

I'll give you an analogy.

If you and your wife are considering making a big purchase; let's say a security system for your house and you need it pretty badly due to a break-in next door. It's going to cost $3,000.

If you have $50K in the bank; not a problem. Sign the check.

If you don't have $50K in the bank and are in debt, lets say $17T in debt, that $3,000 is problematic. But you have good income but each year you spend about $1T more than you take in. That $3K is still needed but it's got to come from somewhere.

You think it should come from sacrificing Junior's braces
She thinks it should come from not buying beef for 6 months

In the past, what would happen is you may get Junior only the bottom teeth straightened this year and the uppers done next year and not buy beef for 3 months instead of six.

If you had total say (or if your wife did), there is now no need to negotiate since the rules have changed.

The point is that majority rule is great when there is largess and plenty. When tough decisions are to be made (and we have a shit load of them upcoming), paper thin majorities that give you 100% of what you want are likely not the smartest way to get there from here.

First off..you missed the point.

Second off the whole idea of a Senate and House came from the English Parliament's House of Lords and House of Commons. The idea being the House of Lords were made up of more learned and careful people.

I kind of agree with the concept. The House is made up a districts and therefore more given to populism. While the Senators represent the state and must give consideration to the whole state. And the idea that the minority should be able to challenge the majority is sound. It gives the process time to think about what they are doing.

However, this is a case where the minority is completely trying to undo the results of an election. They are trying to nullify the vote.

And that's not good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the core complaint of the Obama haters here is that the President and the Senate are now going to be able to exercise their constitutional powers?

lol, of course it is.

 

[Sallow]

So..I gather was the conservatives are saying is..

Majority Rule in the House = Good.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

Why is that?

Here's what I'm saying:

Majority Rule in the House = Bad.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

Yes..we all know what you want.

A Monarchy.

 

[P@triot]

So..I gather was the conservatives are saying is..

Majority Rule in the House = Good.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

Why is that?

Different rules in the House and Senate. I don't think there should be different rules but there are...or at least were.

Simple majorities are good and I think better than super majorities

I'll give you an analogy.

If you and your wife are considering making a big purchase; let's say a security system for your house and you need it pretty badly due to a break-in next door. It's going to cost $3,000.

If you have $50K in the bank; not a problem. Sign the check.

If you don't have $50K in the bank and are in debt, lets say $17T in debt, that $3,000 is problematic. But you have good income but each year you spend about $1T more than you take in. That $3K is still needed but it's got to come from somewhere.

You think it should come from sacrificing Junior's braces
She thinks it should come from not buying beef for 6 months

In the past, what would happen is you may get Junior only the bottom teeth straightened this year and the uppers done next year and not buy beef for 3 months instead of six.

If you had total say (or if your wife did), there is now no need to negotiate since the rules have changed.

The point is that majority rule is great when there is largess and plenty. When tough decisions are to be made (and we have a shit load of them upcoming), paper thin majorities that give you 100% of what you want are likely not the smartest way to get there from here.

It is refreshing to see a Democrat being honest and not being a partisan hack.

This change is BAD for America. It's bad for America if Dumbocrats control the Senate. It's bad for America if Republicans control the Senate. It is just plain BAD. And even Obama, Biden, and Reid have admitted as much...

[ame=http://youtu.be/1pWHHw-dAV4]Obama: Nuclear Option Not Good For Either Part, About Power Instead Of Democracy - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/K1Dacnvjf8A]Biden On Nuclear Option In 2005: "I Pray To God" Democrats Do Not Do This When We Have Power - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/r-nZJ0flnQU]Best Of Harry Reid Opposing Nuclear Option. Harry Reid Compilation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

You people are incapable of common sense. The Senate could go for a decade or more without either party having a supermajority;

the Republicans have proven they are willing to block judges indefinitely, so if the Democrats had 41 to 49 Senators, they could return the favor by blocking a Republican president's appointments indefinitely.

10 or 20 years could pass without any judges being apppointed, despite having the 51% or more votes to pass.

Who thinks that is how our Constitution is supposed to work?

Of course they could have done what they did in 2005.

In the Bush administration, Democratic senators effectively filibustered against several judicial nominations. In 2005, a group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans - dubbed the "Gang of 14" - got together to reduce filibusters for judicial nominees. The Democrats agreed not to filibuster against several nominees, while Republicans ended efforts to rule filibusters unconstitutional.

Yes..and that was done.

Except THEN..the Republicans filibustered 3 judges and several appointments.

Hence..they went back on their word.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people are incapable of common sense. The Senate could go for a decade or more without either party having a supermajority;

the Republicans have proven they are willing to block judges indefinitely, so if the Democrats had 41 to 49 Senators, they could return the favor by blocking a Republican president's appointments indefinitely.

10 or 20 years could pass without any judges being apppointed, despite having the 51% or more votes to pass.

Who thinks that is how our Constitution is supposed to work?

Of course they could have done what they did in 2005.

In the Bush administration, Democratic senators effectively filibustered against several judicial nominations. In 2005, a group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans - dubbed the "Gang of 14" - got together to reduce filibusters for judicial nominees. The Democrats agreed not to filibuster against several nominees, while Republicans ended efforts to rule filibusters unconstitutional.

Why? It's gotten worse since then. Why not kill the problem once and for all, instead of sedating it for awhile....

 

[P@triot]

So..I gather was the conservatives are saying is..

Majority Rule in the House = Good.
Majority Rule in the Senate = Bad.

Why is that?

Different rules in the House and Senate. I don't think there should be different rules but there are...or at least were.

Simple majorities are good and I think better than super majorities

I'll give you an analogy.

If you and your wife are considering making a big purchase; let's say a security system for your house and you need it pretty badly due to a break-in next door. It's going to cost $3,000.

If you have $50K in the bank; not a problem. Sign the check.

If you don't have $50K in the bank and are in debt, lets say $17T in debt, that $3,000 is problematic. But you have good income but each year you spend about $1T more than you take in. That $3K is still needed but it's got to come from somewhere.

You think it should come from sacrificing Junior's braces
She thinks it should come from not buying beef for 6 months

In the past, what would happen is you may get Junior only the bottom teeth straightened this year and the uppers done next year and not buy beef for 3 months instead of six.

If you had total say (or if your wife did), there is now no need to negotiate since the rules have changed.

The point is that majority rule is great when there is largess and plenty. When tough decisions are to be made (and we have a shit load of them upcoming), paper thin majorities that give you 100% of what you want are likely not the smartest way to get there from here.

First off..you missed the point.

Second off the whole idea of a Senate and House came from the English Parliament's House of Lords and House of Commons. The idea being the House of Lords were made up of more learned and careful people.

I kind of agree with the concept. The House is made up a districts and therefore more given to populism. While the Senators represent the state and must give consideration to the whole state. And the idea that the minority should be able to challenge the majority is sound. It gives the process time to think about what they are doing.

However, this is a case where the minority is completely trying to undo the results of an election. They are trying to nullify the vote.

And that's not good.

I love when a liberal says "you missed the point" but can't explain how the point was missed. Care to expand on that? Or did CC make a point that you simply can't dispute?

 

[P@triot]

5 years of filibustering everything you try, I would say enough is enough ...

Of course you would Hitler. You're pissed off (like ALL Dumbocrats) that having the majority in one chamber does not equal DICTATORIAL CONTROL. Which is all you little Nazi's have ever wanted and part of the reason you guys have always hated America - the balance of power.

The Constitution puts the power of judicial nominee approval in the hands of one chamber, the Senate.

If the President and a majority in the Senate should not have the power to appoint and approve judges,

who should?

Why is that so hard for you to answer?

I explained this clearly already - page #3, post #39.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[P@triot]

 

[Stephanie]

[ame=http://youtu.be/K1Dacnvjf8A]Biden On Nuclear Option In 2005: "I Pray To God" Democrats Do Not Do This When We Have Power - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Edgetho]

Guys and gals.....

dimocraps don't care. They lie to your face and laugh about it.

They just don't care.

NONE of them. They're pathological liars. Every.Single.One.Of.Them.

Know what they're doing now? Telling you basically to 'suck on it'

They don't care. dimocraps lie, it's what they do

 

[Sallow]

Different rules in the House and Senate. I don't think there should be different rules but there are...or at least were.

Simple majorities are good and I think better than super majorities

I'll give you an analogy.

If you and your wife are considering making a big purchase; let's say a security system for your house and you need it pretty badly due to a break-in next door. It's going to cost $3,000.

If you have $50K in the bank; not a problem. Sign the check.

If you don't have $50K in the bank and are in debt, lets say $17T in debt, that $3,000 is problematic. But you have good income but each year you spend about $1T more than you take in. That $3K is still needed but it's got to come from somewhere.

You think it should come from sacrificing Junior's braces
She thinks it should come from not buying beef for 6 months

In the past, what would happen is you may get Junior only the bottom teeth straightened this year and the uppers done next year and not buy beef for 3 months instead of six.

If you had total say (or if your wife did), there is now no need to negotiate since the rules have changed.

The point is that majority rule is great when there is largess and plenty. When tough decisions are to be made (and we have a shit load of them upcoming), paper thin majorities that give you 100% of what you want are likely not the smartest way to get there from here.

First off..you missed the point.

Second off the whole idea of a Senate and House came from the English Parliament's House of Lords and House of Commons. The idea being the House of Lords were made up of more learned and careful people.

I kind of agree with the concept. The House is made up a districts and therefore more given to populism. While the Senators represent the state and must give consideration to the whole state. And the idea that the minority should be able to challenge the majority is sound. It gives the process time to think about what they are doing.

However, this is a case where the minority is completely trying to undo the results of an election. They are trying to nullify the vote.

And that's not good.

I love when a liberal says "you missed the point" but can't explain how the point was missed. Care to expand on that? Or did CC make a point that you simply can't dispute?

Re-read the post.

This time XXX

 

[Katzndogz]

Now obama has the power to do just about anything he wants, for a year. Let's see how bad he can make it.