Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Trajan]

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.

excsue me? grassley has had a bill to lower the number of seats from 11 to 8, they have 8, they do not have caseload nor have theyhad for years to justify 11 judges, in 2006 I think it was grassley as sr. Senator killed a request from his own party for a 12th judge, that would have been a a gop pick.....

And show us how the elimination of filibusters so that ratification can happen.

thats what the 3 appointments they are arguing over, and watts for dept of something or other, a guy from NC....

 

[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.

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.

and what basic information is that jake? exactly...

go ahead wow me...

 

[Sarah G]

Still, other opinions on this step having to have happened.

Democrats ditch historic U.S. Senate rule blamed for gridlock

Stephen Hess, a congressional analyst at The Brookings Institution, said, "There's a good reason why it's called 'the nuclear option.' This does change the system."

"And whether it's good or bad depends on from whence you view it and at what moment," Hess said. "It is good for Democrats on the 21st of November, 2013. And it may not be good (for Democrats) if the landscape changes in the mid-term election" next year and Republicans take control of the Senate.

Asked whether the Democrats' move could worsen relations with Republicans and make it more difficult to pass legislation, Hess said "I don't know that relations this bad can get an awful lot worse."

Democrats ditch historic U.S. Senate rule blamed for gridlock | Reuters

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm glad to see most of the left cheering to Raid's and senate democrats nuclear option. Vote by simple majority will come so handy after next year midterm election.
Some on the left are so sure that Reps can't win senate. Only way to be sure in something like that if you know the outcome. Of course, as long dead people and Mickey Mouse are on your side, there is no reason to worry, otherwise they wouldn't go nuclear.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

When the GOP dares to use a filibuster or a threat of a filibuster against Obama's oppressive nominees, the scumbag Reid and his filthy cabal have no problem using the so-called "nuclear" option.

But when the GOP had the majority and it was they who suggested, maybe, possibly, someday down the road using that "nuclear" option, the howls of outraged protest from the filthy liberal Democrat hypocrites would have deafened people for a ten mile radius.

The asshole filthy liberal Democratics will indeed rue the day they did this.

Until then, I am content noting their unmitigated display of arrogant hypocrisy.

 

[Ame®icano]

When the GOP dares to use a filibuster or a threat of a filibuster against Obama's oppressive nominees, the scumbag Reid and his filthy cabal have no problem using the so-called "nuclear" option.

But when the GOP had the majority and it was they who suggested, maybe, possibly, someday down the road using that "nuclear" option, the howls of outraged protest from the filthy liberal Democrat hypocrites would have deafened people for a ten mile radius.

The asshole filthy liberal Democratics will indeed rue the day they did this.

Until then, I am content noting their unmitigated display of arrogant hypocrisy.

Don't forget, it's not just Reid. It's all those senate democrats that supports him.

 

[Sarah G]

I'm glad to see most of the left cheering to Raid's and senate democrats nuclear option. Vote by simple majority will come so handy after next year midterm election.
Some on the left are so sure that Reps can't win senate. Only way to be sure in something like that if you know the outcome. Of course, as long dead people and Mickey Mouse are on your side, there is no reason to worry, otherwise they wouldn't go nuclear.

There's always the handy dandy government shutdown option at the Republican's fingertips. I'm sure the Teaparty will think up other shady schemes they can pull out of their butts to utilize for their obstruction.

They certainly don't want to work for their money, they need these tricky antics because they're only up there just looking busy.

 

[Article 15]

Trajan is lying is ass off about the "court stacking".

But he knows that - which is why he's such a scumbag.

 

[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?

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.

and what basic information is that jake? exactly...

go ahead wow me...

Sigh. Take the time to read and then take the time to write clearly. Huh.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

it's court stacking, not packing. With so many appointments needed, this all came down to getting those 3 moved in the DC circuit for a 7-4 sway. And in case it wasnt mentioned, the DC circuit courto is one of the leading courts when it comes to regulatory business, etc....

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm glad to see most of the left cheering to Raid's and senate democrats nuclear option. Vote by simple majority will come so handy after next year midterm election.
Some on the left are so sure that Reps can't win senate. Only way to be sure in something like that if you know the outcome. Of course, as long dead people and Mickey Mouse are on your side, there is no reason to worry, otherwise they wouldn't go nuclear.

There's always the handy dandy government shutdown option at the Republican's fingertips. I'm sure the Teaparty will think up other shady schemes they can pull out of their butts to utilize for their obstruction.

They certainly don't want to work for their money, they need these tricky antics because they're only up there just looking busy.

Keep telling yourself that and you'll sleep better.

 

[Contumacious]

The majority should rule in a democracy.

Get rid of the filibuster forever.

We're a Republic, not a Democracy:

United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.

Furthermore, it's the Senate, which represents the States equally,

That is incorrect.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Every once in a blue moon someone in Congress .....proposes a law or resolution that would actually improve the prospects for human liberty and prosperity. It's rare, but not nonexistent. One such case is Senate Joint Resolution 35, introduced into the U.S. Senate on April 28, 2004, which was recently brought to my attention by Laurence Vance.

S.J. Res. 35 reads: "Resolved . . . . The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." That's Section 1. Section 2 reads that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years . . ."

This was the original design of the founding fathers; U.S. senators were not directly elected by the voting public until 1914. Thus, S.J. Res. 35 proposes a return to founding principles and is therefore a most revolutionary idea. A good overview of the history of the Seventeenth Amendment is Ralph A. Rossum's book, Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment. Rossum correctly points out that the system of federalism or "divided sovereignty" that the founding fathers created with the Constitution was never intended to be enforced by the Supreme Court alone. Congress, the president, and most importantly, the citizens of the states, were also to have an equal say on constitutional matters.

The citizens of the states were to be represented by their state legislatures. As Roger Sherman wrote in a letter to John Adams: "The senators, being . . . dependent on [state legislatures] for reelection, will be vigilant in supporting their rights against infringement by the legislative or executive of the United States."

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * [O]n May 18, 2005, even Harry Reid spoke out against the very tactic that he has now enacted.

“The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn't new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick,” Reid said at the time.

It's part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate. It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it's an integral part of our country's 214-year history. The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. It's been employed on legislative matters, it's been employed on procedural matters relating to the president's nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it's been used on judges for all those years. One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters. Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I've stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules.

-- Reid, Clinton, Obama, Biden All Opposed 'Nuclear Option' Eight Years Ago

What a completely bald faced hypocritical piece of shit Reid is.

 

[Contumacious]

Uh huh and when the Democrats are the minority will they want to change the rules back? Reid and the Democrats would be wise to remember you don't remain the majority forever.

Reid (D-USSR) REFUSED to change the filibuster several years ago:


Reid nixes filibuster reform effort

By Paul Kane

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday dismissed an effort by some Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, saying the chamber's procedures were designed to prevent the majority party from unilaterally changing the rules.

.

 

[Mustang]

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.

"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."

Do you think untruths like this are helpful?

Nominees were filibustered for many reasons. It was not about Obama. Putting a hold on appointments until other issues were looked at is not filibustering solely because Obama made the nomination. Politics is messy business. Democrats played it too. What Republicans did was not unprecedented in any detail except for the number of filibusters, and that was part of a trend. Democrats escalated the pace of filibusters during Bush's presidency and if a Republican had been elected president again in this polarized, media-saturated, cameras-everywhere age, Democrats would have further escalated their filibusters too.

Oh sweet Geezus Amelia WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?!!! Repubs filibustered anything and everything that had our great president's hand prints on it. You people are beyond the pale on this PUT down the SeanRushLevin kool aid

I listened to a little of Levin's show last night because I was sure he was going to blow a gasket. He did not disappoint. He ranted and raved as usual. But he was so around the bend that he made it sound as if Marshal Law had been declared and he was on the run from an arrest decree.

My concern, which I've expressed a few times, is that talk radio has become potentially dangerous to our Republic if people take this hyperbolic nonsense seriously since it's essentially a daily anti American rant which undermines our country's ability to solve problems in an increasingly competitive world when other countries are not crippled by this kind perpetual gridlock. America has become like a team that can't play together due to all kinds of personal squabbles and petty gripes while other less talented teams are working toward a common goal. Namely winning at the game of international competition.

 

[Sarah G]

I'm glad to see most of the left cheering to Raid's and senate democrats nuclear option. Vote by simple majority will come so handy after next year midterm election.
Some on the left are so sure that Reps can't win senate. Only way to be sure in something like that if you know the outcome. Of course, as long dead people and Mickey Mouse are on your side, there is no reason to worry, otherwise they wouldn't go nuclear.

There's always the handy dandy government shutdown option at the Republican's fingertips. I'm sure the Teaparty will think up other shady schemes they can pull out of their butts to utilize for their obstruction.

They certainly don't want to work for their money, they need these tricky antics because they're only up there just looking busy.

Keep telling yourself that and you'll sleep better.

I'm sleeping very well, this step just had to be taken. If you all would just calm down and work within the new guidelines, you might like it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, we should outlaw talk radio. UNless it is expressly positive and supportive of the current president and congress.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There's always the handy dandy government shutdown option at the Republican's fingertips. I'm sure the Teaparty will think up other shady schemes they can pull out of their butts to utilize for their obstruction.

They certainly don't want to work for their money, they need these tricky antics because they're only up there just looking busy.

Keep telling yourself that and you'll sleep better.

I'm sleeping very well, this step just had to be taken. If you all would just calm down and work within the new guidelines, you might like it.

Another Fake Starkey speaking as though any of us work within the rules of the senate. Just how many people that frequent this site have mental disorders? It seems like a lot. or there are a LOT of trolls. All i can reckon.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"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."

Do you think untruths like this are helpful?

Nominees were filibustered for many reasons. It was not about Obama. Putting a hold on appointments until other issues were looked at is not filibustering solely because Obama made the nomination. Politics is messy business. Democrats played it too. What Republicans did was not unprecedented in any detail except for the number of filibusters, and that was part of a trend. Democrats escalated the pace of filibusters during Bush's presidency and if a Republican had been elected president again in this polarized, media-saturated, cameras-everywhere age, Democrats would have further escalated their filibusters too.

Oh sweet Geezus Amelia WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?!!! Repubs filibustered anything and everything that had our great president's hand prints on it. You people are beyond the pale on this PUT down the SeanRushLevin kool aid

I listened to a little of Levin's show last night because I was sure he was going to blow a gasket. He did not disappoint. He ranted and raved as usual. But he was so around the bend that he made it sound as if Marshal Law had been declared and he was on the run from an arrest decree.

My concern, which I've expressed a few times, is that talk radio has become potentially dangerous to our Republic if people take this hyperbolic nonsense seriously since it's essentially a daily anti American rant which undermines our country's ability to solve problems in an increasingly competitive world when other countries are not crippled by this kind perpetual gridlock. America has become like a team that can't play together due to all kinds of personal squabbles and petty gripes while other less talented teams are working toward a common goal. Namely winning at the game of international competition.

OMFG. ^ The liberals are showing their true grasp on the meaning of free speech.

It's fine when they like what's said. It's a menace to the Republic if they disagree with what's said.

Unbelievable filth now stands highlighted. It's tragic. Not unexpected from such hyperventilating modern American "liberals," but tragic, filthy and disgusting just the same.

 

[mudwhistle]

There's always the handy dandy government shutdown option at the Republican's fingertips. I'm sure the Teaparty will think up other shady schemes they can pull out of their butts to utilize for their obstruction.

They certainly don't want to work for their money, they need these tricky antics because they're only up there just looking busy.

Keep telling yourself that and you'll sleep better.

I'm sleeping very well, this step just had to be taken. If you all would just calm down and work within the new guidelines, you might like it.

Rapist say the same thing.

If you would just learn to relax you might enjoy it.....