Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Dot Com]

That would explain why the Repubs have filibustered more appointments in the last 4+ years than in the entire history of the senate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...themselves-to-blame-for-reids-nuclear-option/

There is no mention of the filibuster in the Constitution. Until very recently in U.S. history, filibusters were rarely used. Half of all filibusters of executive-branch nominees have occurred under President Obama, and it was obvious from the first day of his presidency that Republicans would use the tactic to hamstring the government and block Obama.

ummm..... the filibuster was designed to be used rarely in matters of great import NOT as a primary governing tool (oxymoron) by republicans on EVERY appointment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...themselves-to-blame-for-reids-nuclear-option/

There is no mention of the filibuster in the Constitution. Until very recently in U.S. history, filibusters were rarely used. Half of all filibusters of executive-branch nominees have occurred under President Obama, and it was obvious from the first day of his presidency that Republicans would use the tactic to hamstring the government and block Obama.

uh huh....... my ox isn't being gored becasue I never wanted Frist et al to use the nuclear option either, the senate is designed the way it was with the filibuster ala 1792/1806 for a reason, and the differences in chambers is on purpose.

theres a reason why a state like Wyoming with 1 million people have just as many senators as say California with over 30 million? 6 year term...See how that works? It was never intended to be a majority house, it is not a populist chamber.


the house is, a MAJORITY chamber, a populist chamber by design ......


considering being blind and stupid is a majority that is such a mess they cannot find their way out except by turning the very screws , solitude and going their own one party way, even harder. The dems went your own way on obamacare and?

If they had had 10 gop senators and 50 or so house gopers in on obamacare, Obamas hand would be infinitely stronger...but in his won words;" I won"...well, there ya go.

You know what Joe Lewis said...you can run but you can't hide.....

If this was intended as a distraction it was stupid, and you've blown the comity/community card, no one, even the average half wit half way intelligent voter thinks that there will be or even should be anything left now of cooperation etc, in either endeavors, bills etc.

...you cannot stomp someones guts like you did with that big Fuck you with obamacare and then expect them to cooperate.....well, I take that back, it appears you are one of those deluded ones that thinks like Jake= faux moderators that the gop should help mend obamacare.....

Oh and you're "they fought every nominee" is bullshit, the least you could do is go and rad some thing other than think progress

oh and just as an exit remark;

obama said alito has " training and qualifications necessary to serve" and an "an intelligent man, accomplishment jurist", of great character...yet he voted to filibuster him...

its a little late to bitch now....and ts not been used on every appt. but hey, I didn't except you to follow up on my request to old hocks.

 

[oreo]

can anyone really blame him for the "party of no" (hint- the party that couldn't win the Presidency or the senate ) simply blocking anything that moves for the past 4+ yrs? Sen. Reid is a statesman & a scholar

Reid threatens to go nuclear on filibuster reform | MSNBC

“I’m considering looking at the rules,” the Nevada Democrat told reporters on Tuesday. “The American people are sick of this. In the name of simple fairness, any president, not just President Obama, Democrat or Republican, needs to be able to have the team that he wants in place,” Reid added.

Reid’s threat comes as Senate Republicans blocked – for the third time in three weeks—Obama’s pick, Robert Wilkins, to be a judge on the powerful D.C. Court of Appeals. Reid had a solid majority, but due to GOP’s exploitation of the Senate’s arcane rules, Democrats still fell six votes short of ending debate on Wilkins’ nomination.

Besides Obamacare this is really the dumbest thing I have seen Democrats do. Every administration through-out the decades have had their court nominees filibustered by the minority party in the senate.

Democrats have opened up PANDORA'S box. Republicans who are soon to take the senate in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016, now have an excuse to do the same with their nominees, because Harry Reid and Obama gave it to them.

Now we have to ask ourselves if they can do this with court appointees, then when will this nasty bite move into legislation, to where Obamacare can be repealed with just a simple majority or just 51 votes in the Senate?

Now here is Obama--Reid--Biden having a fit about a threat of the Nuclear Option in 2005 from Republicans. Pay very close attention to what they are saying:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdbjrXiobQ]Obama and Democrats on Reconciliation/Nuclear Option 2005 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dot Com]

Remember people!!! BEFORE Repubs can abuse the rule change, they have to win some elections WHICH has not been the forte' for some time now. 'lest we forget, w/o gerrymandering and voter suppression, they'd already be a permanent minority party. People are wise to who they REALLY work for and it aint the SOCONs

 

[Trajan]

Yep, both sides have gone back and forth. That's not the issue. Politicians change their positions when politically convenient.

The issue is who abused filibusters to the extent that change became necessary. And that's what some people don't want to talk about.

Prior to Obama, filibusters were fewer in number, and at least cited some justification concerning the qualifications of the nominee. Might have been a weak justification, but at least they tried.

After Obama, that changed. Even if everyone agreed the nominee was a perfect candidate, the nominee was still filibustered, solely because Obama nominated him. That hadn't happened before, and was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Republicans were trying to outflank the Constitution, removing the President's power to make appointments. In defense of the Constitution, the filibuster had to be removed for appointments. It also should have been removed for SC justices, for consistency. Filibustering legislation, that's not a constitutional issue, as doing so isn't violating the Constitution.

Anyone informed person with a hint of intellectual honesty knows the stark differences between what happened then compared to what happened yesterday.

But take a good look at where you are and who hangs out here - intellectual honestly is something the USMB Right Wing Nut Brigade is incapable of.

This is the land of the lost.

man oh ,man first' when you find that " person with a hint of intellectual honesty" sit him down and ask him to share some with you, I can't do it via the interwebz bro.....

second;


yes I agree you're in the land of the lost, you're just another media sheep, eat what they feed and and stfu.

heres another blast from the past aside from obamas comments on Alito, directly contradicting mamooth directly....( you'd know that if you weren't such an angry hack)

Miguel Estrada for DC circuit....his nomination failed 7 cloture votes.

Reason for filibustering?schumer the ambulance chaser, fear of the gop stealing a march by getting a brown man on the Circuit ready for a SC slot...Estrada was....

"a Stealth missile -- with a nose cone -- coming out of the right wing's deepest silo."

 

[dblack]

Remember people!!! BEFORE Repubs can abuse the rule change, they have to win some elections WHICH has not been the forte' for some time now. 'lest we forget, w/o gerrymandering and voter suppression, they'd already be a permanent minority party. People are wise to who they REALLY work for and it aint the SOCONs

I haven't forgotten at all. And it's very disturbing to consider that no party would really be willing to dismiss protections for minority power unless they planned to never be in the minority seat again. Do they know something we don't?

 

[dblack]

That would explain why the Repubs have filibustered more appointments in the last 4+ years than in the entire history of the senate?

What would explain it as that this regime has been more abusive of majority power than any in the entire history of the Senate.

 

[Trajan]

That would explain why the Repubs have filibustered more appointments in the last 4+ years than in the entire history of the senate?

Republicans have only themselves to blame for Reid?s ?nuclear option?

There is no mention of the filibuster in the Constitution. Until very recently in U.S. history, filibusters were rarely used. Half of all filibusters of executive-branch nominees have occurred under President Obama, and it was obvious from the first day of his presidency that Republicans would use the tactic to hamstring the government and block Obama.

ummm..... the filibuster was designed to be used rarely in matters of great import NOT as a primary governing tool (oxymoron) by republicans on EVERY appointment

Republicans have only themselves to blame for Reid?s ?nuclear option?

its a little late to bitch now....and ts not been used on every appt. but hey, I didn't except you to follow up on my request to old hocks.

and this has what to do with what I said? and no offense seriously but that article has like zero data...its more like a half rant...*shrugs*

 

[Dot Com]

Miguel? Sounds like someone Monica Goodling tried to emulate- using SOCON litmus tests in fedral hiring is a no no Any rw'ers remember Monica Goodling but I digress

Miguel Estrada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Additionally, though a member of The Federalist Society, Estrada had never been an academic, so there was no record of his writing by which the Senate could review his record. He had worked in the Office of the Solicitor General under the senior President George Herbert Walker Bush. He had also been a partner in the same law firm as Ted Olson, working on the legal team that represented the younger Bush in the Bush v. Gore case. Thus he and his record were well known in conservative circles, and he was even known to be a friend of Ann Coulter who acknowledged him in her book.[2]

Yet, in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he claimed he had never thought about Roe v. Wade even while serving as a Supreme Court clerk at a time when the first Bush Administration had asked the Court to reconsider it. Also while as Justice Kennedy's clerk, he interviewed potential candidates for the clerkship. In an article published in The Nation magazine Jack Newfield alleged that Estrada had disqualified candidates who were too liberal. When questioned about this by Sen. Charles Schumer at the confirmation hearing, Estrada changed his recollection of the incident during his testimony

 

[Trajan]

Remember people!!! BEFORE Repubs can abuse the rule change, they have to win some elections WHICH has not been the forte' for some time now. 'lest we forget, w/o gerrymandering and voter suppression, they'd already be a permanent minority party. People are wise to who they REALLY work for and it aint the SOCONs

I haven't forgotten at all. And it's very disturbing to consider that no party would really be willing to dismiss protections for minority power unless they planned to never be in the minority seat again. Do they know something we don't?

yea.....looking at this now, I have been thinking- why now?

they must know that this will not drive obamacare off the front pages......is there some huge regulatory rule/law ( EPA?) they want to force thru and want the DC court stacked on the chance the panel they pull will have a maj. dems make up?

Is say ruth bader ginsberg going to retire? I don't beleive for a second reid won't use this for a SC nominee or legislation if its big enough either..... The shock will have worn off. ( just like I know the sheep here wouldn't say squat either)

Are they going ot make some obamacare moves they know will wind up at the DC court?

 

[Meister]

so the phony moderate speaks up again,

I should have known, I actually thought you'd be sensible and see now extreme a move on so many levels this was aside from utterly tactless and harmful to an already fragile balance there has been....but, nope, its congenital....right," this is a good move"...

That you can't stand moderation in the GOP is your problem, Trajan, only. Government has to work. We will get ours back when we take power.

The issue remains the extremes of both parties: they have to be broken.

first of all jake please go inform yourself...just once before you chime in, please .


this has shit all to do with 'moderation',if anything this is exactly what the filibuster was created to stop;

obama wants to add 4 more judges to the DC circuit, thats add as in not replace or fill vacancies, add more seats, to in affect "pack" it.....adding more of his own folks when right now there is a even split, and they are NOT understaffed, NOT overworked...

thats really what got obama/ reid on the warpath, the dc court deals with a lot of regulatory issues....and , hes wrong, so lets see, can Jake get outside himself and admit that obama and reid were trying to pull a fast one?

can you admit that?

Wow! I did not know this, This should be concerning to anyone who IS left or right.
If it isn't, then it has to be party over country.

 

[Trajan]

Miguel? Sounds like someone Monica Goodling tried to emulate- using SOCON litmus tests in fedral hiring is a no no Any rw'ers remember Monica Goodling but I digress

Miguel Estrada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Additionally, though a member of The Federalist Society, Estrada had never been an academic, so there was no record of his writing by which the Senate could review his record. He had worked in the Office of the Solicitor General under the senior President George Herbert Walker Bush. He had also been a partner in the same law firm as Ted Olson, working on the legal team that represented the younger Bush in the Bush v. Gore case. Thus he and his record were well known in conservative circles, and he was even known to be a friend of Ann Coulter who acknowledged him in her book.[2]

Yet, in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he claimed he had never thought about Roe v. Wade even while serving as a Supreme Court clerk at a time when the first Bush Administration had asked the Court to reconsider it. Also while as Justice Kennedy's clerk, he interviewed potential candidates for the clerkship. In an article published in The Nation magazine Jack Newfield alleged that Estrada had disqualified candidates who were too liberal. When questioned about this by Sen. Charles Schumer at the confirmation hearing, Estrada changed his recollection of the incident during his testimony

yes I know exactly what monica did or was...and your point is? oh deflection got it

right, so he was a con...yea we knew that, but gosh he may have been friendly with...Ann Coulter!!!

I'll think about that the next time obama and al sharkskin get together

and wow estrada may have had a smaller past than most other nominations.....humm, sorta like..... obama?

 

[mudwhistle]

so the phony moderate speaks up again,

I should have known, I actually thought you'd be sensible and see now extreme a move on so many levels this was aside from utterly tactless and harmful to an already fragile balance there has been....but, nope, its congenital....right," this is a good move"...

That you can't stand moderation in the GOP is your problem, Trajan, only. Government has to work. We will get ours back when we take power.

The issue remains the extremes of both parties: they have to be broken.

first of all jake please go inform yourself...just once before you chime in, please .


this has shit all to do with 'moderation',if anything this is exactly what the filibuster was created to stop;

obama wants to add 4 more judges to the DC circuit, thats add as in not replace or fill vacancies, add more seats, to in affect "pack" it.....adding more of his own folks when right now there is a even split, and they are NOT understaffed, NOT overworked...

thats really what got obama/ reid on the warpath, the dc court deals with a lot of regulatory issues....and , hes wrong, so lets see, can Jake get outside himself and admit that obama and reid were trying to pull a fast one?

can you admit that?

Jury-rigging......

 

[JakeStarkey]

That would explain why the Repubs have filibustered more appointments in the last 4+ years than in the entire history of the senate?

Republicans have only themselves to blame for Reid?s ?nuclear option?

There is no mention of the filibuster in the Constitution. Until very recently in U.S. history, filibusters were rarely used. Half of all filibusters of executive-branch nominees have occurred under President Obama, and it was obvious from the first day of his presidency that Republicans would use the tactic to hamstring the government and block Obama.

ummm..... the filibuster was designed to be used rarely in matters of great import NOT as a primary governing tool (oxymoron) by republicans on EVERY appointment

Republicans have only themselves to blame for Reid?s ?nuclear option?

its a little late to bitch now....and ts not been used on every appt. but hey, I didn't except you to follow up on my request to old hocks.

Trajan is not aware of basic information like that.

The parties have to work together, and if the minority party, and I was not happy the Dems were doing it to the Pubs during Bush's presidencies, will not do so, then the majority has the obligation to make it happen.

We will get ours back when we take the Senate.

 

[Trajan]

That you can't stand moderation in the GOP is your problem, Trajan, only. Government has to work. We will get ours back when we take power.

The issue remains the extremes of both parties: they have to be broken.

first of all jake please go inform yourself...just once before you chime in, please .


this has shit all to do with 'moderation',if anything this is exactly what the filibuster was created to stop;

obama wants to add 4 more judges to the DC circuit, thats add as in not replace or fill vacancies, add more seats, to in affect "pack" it.....adding more of his own folks when right now there is a even split, and they are NOT understaffed, NOT overworked...

thats really what got obama/ reid on the warpath, the dc court deals with a lot of regulatory issues....and , hes wrong, so lets see, can Jake get outside himself and admit that obama and reid were trying to pull a fast one?

can you admit that?

Wow! I did not know this, This should be concerning to anyone who IS left or right.
If it isn't, then it has to be party over country.

I misspoke, its 3 judges sorry

 

[JakeStarkey]

That you can't stand moderation in the GOP is your problem, Trajan, only. Government has to work. We will get ours back when we take power.

The issue remains the extremes of both parties: they have to be broken.

first of all jake please go inform yourself...just once before you chime in, please .


this has shit all to do with 'moderation',if anything this is exactly what the filibuster was created to stop;

obama wants to add 4 more judges to the DC circuit, thats add as in not replace or fill vacancies, add more seats, to in affect "pack" it.....adding more of his own folks when right now there is a even split, and they are NOT understaffed, NOT overworked...

thats really what got obama/ reid on the warpath, the dc court deals with a lot of regulatory issues....and , hes wrong, so lets see, can Jake get outside himself and admit that obama and reid were trying to pull a fast one?

can you admit that?

Wow! I did not know this, This should be concerning to anyone who IS left or right.
If it isn't, then it has to be party over country.

That would require legislation first to increase the number, would it not?

Trajan, give us a link that such legislation is being prepared. And show us how the elimination of filibusters so that ratification can happen.

 

[mudwhistle]

That would explain why the Repubs have filibustered more appointments in the last 4+ years than in the entire history of the senate?

Republicans have only themselves to blame for Reid?s ?nuclear option?

There is no mention of the filibuster in the Constitution. Until very recently in U.S. history, filibusters were rarely used. Half of all filibusters of executive-branch nominees have occurred under President Obama, and it was obvious from the first day of his presidency that Republicans would use the tactic to hamstring the government and block Obama.

its a little late to bitch now....and ts not been used on every appt. but hey, I didn't except you to follow up on my request to old hocks.

Trajan is not aware of basic information like that.

The parties have to work together, and if the minority party, and I was not happy the Dems were doing it to the Pubs during Bush's presidencies, will not do so, then the majority has the obligation to make it happen.

We will get ours back when we take the Senate.

Parties work together?

When are the Dems gonna try that one?

They've been constantly at war with the GOP since the 2000 election

 

[Sarah G]

This is the most interesting quote regarding filibusters in the history of the republic:

The need for change is obvious. In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of them have occurred during the Obama Administration – during the last four and a half years. These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote. But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote and deny the President his team.

These nominees are tapped and it is one of the happiest moments ever then you get a bunch of Teaidiots just saying nope, not gonna happen. For no good reason.

How would you like it if at your job if you were in line for a promotion and someone just put the kibosh on it because you associated with a person your boss doesn't like? You're career is just over...

There are currently 75 executive branch nominees ready to be confirmed by the Senate that have been waiting an average of 140 days for confirmation. One executive nominee to the agency that safeguards the water our children and grandchildren drink and the air they breathe has waited more than 800 days for confirmation.

We agreed in July that the Senate should be confirming nominees to ensure the proper functioning of government. But consistent and unprecedented obstruction by the Republican Caucus has turned “advise and consent” into “deny and obstruct.”

Senate reforms filibuster, GOP can no longer block exec, jud. nominees

 

[Dot Com]

That would explain why the Repubs have filibustered more appointments in the last 4+ years than in the entire history of the senate?

Republicans have only themselves to blame for Reid?s ?nuclear option?

There is no mention of the filibuster in the Constitution. Until very recently in U.S. history, filibusters were rarely used. Half of all filibusters of executive-branch nominees have occurred under President Obama, and it was obvious from the first day of his presidency that Republicans would use the tactic to hamstring the government and block Obama.

its a little late to bitch now....and ts not been used on every appt. but hey, I didn't except you to follow up on my request to old hocks.

Trajan is not aware of basic information like that.

The parties have to work together, and if the minority party, and I was not happy the Dems were doing it to the Pubs during Bush's presidencies, will not do so, then the majority has the obligation to make it happen.

We will get ours back when we take the Senate.

agreed. This great nation doesn't have the time to "wait around" while taxpayer-funded salaries of Repubs (how much do sen Repubs rake in for their taxpayer-funded salaries nowadays for basically doing nothing anyways?) recite green eggs and ham on the people's dime.

 

[Trajan]

That would explain why the Repubs have filibustered more appointments in the last 4+ years than in the entire history of the senate?

What would explain it as that this regime has been more abusive of majority power than any in the entire history of the Senate.

no, thats clearly impossible

 

[JakeStarkey]

And "packing the court" nonsense by Trajan? I wish he would read more carefully and use words correctly.

While the court has three vacancies, they are not among the 32 “judicial emergencies” identified by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts—and the president hasn’t even made nominations to most of those seats. Moreover, the court’s caseload is among the lowest of the courts of appeals, at 88 cases per judge, and declining. According to one current judge, “If any more judges were added now, there wouldn’t be enough work to go around.” Is Obama trying to pack the DC appeals court? | TheHill

There are three legitimate openings, gang. The AOOTUSC states that filling them are not "judicial emergencies" and that "there wouldn't be enough work to go around."

The above put's the statement "packing the courts" into nuance and context. It is not an FDR attempt to increase the normal size of the court. However, yes, it is apparently an attempt by the administration to protect is core legislation.

Now can we debate this logically and not so emotionally.