Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[The T]

A litmus test is not something anyone wants to admit to when nominating their judges. That's what stacking the courts is all about.

A person is nominated that can get enough votes from the other side, now that doesn't have to be the case. Now you can get an ideological nut in place....this can come from either side.
If you like that, then it really is party over country, along with that comes the erosion of our country.

That is what I see being the result of using litmus tests, ideological nutcases. Judges were never to be put in a position of attempting legislation from the bench. I've noticed over the years things changing on that front. In fact it's blatant.

We don't know what Obama's strategy is because he has been denied the opportunity to get his judges confirmed. That is the main reason for the nuclear option, the Rs brought it on themselves.

Both sides do it but it is the blatant and extreme number of opportunities this president has been denied.

Just like numerous Bush appointees being gummed up by Democrats until the Nuclear Option was threatened BY the Republicans. It didn't happen...WHY? It forced the Democrats to the table for compromise.

Reid and Obama compromise? They wouldn't hear of it...thus yesterday's event.

Nice try.

 

[Amelia]

A litmus test is not something anyone wants to admit to when nominating their judges. That's what stacking the courts is all about.

A person is nominated that can get enough votes from the other side, now that doesn't have to be the case. Now you can get an ideological nut in place....this can come from either side.
If you like that, then it really is party over country, along with that comes the erosion of our country.

Stop w/ the hyperbole. It merely allows them to get an up or down vote LATER ON in the process instead of being mired down in rw filibusters for months/years

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4

You're smarter than that. Aren't you?

At which stage will a president's nominee be turned back, no matter how unqualified or how extreme the nominee is?

None. At no stage. All that is required is a majority vote at each stage, so each stage is a mere formality. Members of the president's party will give the president however many votes he needs to make the nomination stick.

Some may vote against if there is enough of a margin to allow a few people to make whatever votes they need to cover their asses with their electorate. But if their vote is needed, they will give it to their party.

Now that there is no threat of filibuster, as soon as the nomination is made the vote to confirm is a foregone conclusion if the same party holds the white house and the senate. Any intermediate stages are window dressing. The Senate might as well be Buckingham Palace at that point.

 

[Mustang]

The primer is set. If America has the heart for a civil war, the catalyst is surely there

-Geaux

I just wonder which flag you guys will be carrying because it's a sure bet it won't be the American flag.

So, it will either be the Confederate flag or perhaps the Don't Tread On Me flag.

Which begs the following questions:

Why is it that the people who always talk reverentially about the US Constitution are always trying to change it?

And why is it that conservatives who are always talking about how they love America are always threatening secession?

 

[The T]

A person is nominated that can get enough votes from the other side, now that doesn't have to be the case. Now you can get an ideological nut in place....this can come from either side.
If you like that, then it really is party over country, along with that comes the erosion of our country.

Stop w/ the hyperbole. It merely allows them to get an up or down vote LATER ON in the process instead of being mired down in rw filibusters for months/years

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4

You're smarter than that. Aren't you?

At which stage will a president's nominee be turned back, no matter how unqualified or how extreme the nominee is?

None. At no stage. All that is required is a majority vote at each stage, so each stage is a mere formality. Members of the president's party will give the president however many votes he needs to make the nomination stick.

Some may vote against if there is enough of a margin to allow a few people to make whatever votes they need to cover their asses with their electorate. But if their vote is needed, they will give it to their party.

Now that there is no threat of filibuster, as soon as the nomination is made the vote to confirm is a foregone conclusion if the same party holds the white house and the senate. Any intermediate stages are window dressing. The Senate might as well be Buckingham Palace at that point.

Or a second House of Representatives...but then wasn't that the intent of the 17th?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This move is yet another scam by Democrats.......the people he's whining about have already been approved. This is just an attempt to get the media off of Obamacare.

Harry Reid and the Senate's 'nuclear option' - YouTube

Wasn't it the majority Republicans back in the 90's the ones that created the nuclear option so that the minority democrats could still have a say in the legislative process?

 

[Mustang]

A person is nominated that can get enough votes from the other side, now that doesn't have to be the case. Now you can get an ideological nut in place....this can come from either side.
If you like that, then it really is party over country, along with that comes the erosion of our country.

Stop w/ the hyperbole. It merely allows them to get an up or down vote LATER ON in the process instead of being mired down in rw filibusters for months/years

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4

You're smarter than that. Aren't you?

At which stage will a president's nominee be turned back, no matter how unqualified or how extreme the nominee is?

None. At no stage. All that is required is a majority vote at each stage, so each stage is a mere formality. Members of the president's party will give the president however many votes he needs to make the nomination stick.

Some may vote against if there is enough of a margin to allow a few people to make whatever votes they need to cover their asses with their electorate. But if their vote is needed, they will give it to their party.

Now that there is no threat of filibuster, as soon as the nomination is made the vote to confirm is a foregone conclusion if the same party holds the white house and the senate. Any intermediate stages are window dressing. The Senate might as well be Buckingham Palace at that point.

To my knowledge, Obama didn't nominate Michael Brown to head FEMA or Michele Bachmann to head anything.

 

[boilermaker55]

And I am sure you will be right in the middle of the real fighting. LOL. What lame statement you have made.

The primer is set. If America has the heart for a civil war, the catalyst is surely there

-Geaux

 

[Meister]

A litmus test is not something anyone wants to admit to when nominating their judges. That's what stacking the courts is all about.

A person is nominated that can get enough votes from the other side, now that doesn't have to be the case. Now you can get an ideological nut in place....this can come from either side.
If you like that, then it really is party over country, along with that comes the erosion of our country.

Stop w/ the hyperbole. It merely allows them to get an up or down vote LATER ON in the process instead of being mired down in rw filibusters for months/years

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4

What it does do is allow ultra ideological judges legislate from the bench.

 

[The T]

A person is nominated that can get enough votes from the other side, now that doesn't have to be the case. Now you can get an ideological nut in place....this can come from either side.
If you like that, then it really is party over country, along with that comes the erosion of our country.

Stop w/ the hyperbole. It merely allows them to get an up or down vote LATER ON in the process instead of being mired down in rw filibusters for months/years

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4

What it does do is allow ultra ideological judges legislate from the bench.

Indeed. And circumvent the purpose of the courts as designed by the Founders...and takes the blindfold off Lady Justice, and weighs her scales too far to one side. NOT what this Republic was supposed to be about.

 

[Meister]

Stop w/ the hyperbole. It merely allows them to get an up or down vote LATER ON in the process instead of being mired down in rw filibusters for months/years

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4

You're smarter than that. Aren't you?

At which stage will a president's nominee be turned back, no matter how unqualified or how extreme the nominee is?

None. At no stage. All that is required is a majority vote at each stage, so each stage is a mere formality. Members of the president's party will give the president however many votes he needs to make the nomination stick.

Some may vote against if there is enough of a margin to allow a few people to make whatever votes they need to cover their asses with their electorate. But if their vote is needed, they will give it to their party.

Now that there is no threat of filibuster, as soon as the nomination is made the vote to confirm is a foregone conclusion if the same party holds the white house and the senate. Any intermediate stages are window dressing. The Senate might as well be Buckingham Palace at that point.

To my knowledge, Obama didn't nominate Michael Brown to head FEMA or Michele Bachmann to head anything.

Didn't obummer appoint a communist in his cabinet? Now he could put one up for a federal judge, and the obummerbots would tow the line for him in confirmation vote.
If it was a repub senate and pres. the same could happen.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A litmus test is not something anyone wants to admit to when nominating their judges. That's what stacking the courts is all about.

A person is nominated that can get enough votes from the other side, now that doesn't have to be the case. Now you can get an ideological nut in place....this can come from either side.
If you like that, then it really is party over country, along with that comes the erosion of our country.

Stop w/ the hyperbole. It merely allows them to get an up or down vote LATER ON in the process instead of being mired down in rw filibusters for months/years

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4

There is no hyperbole. If democrats did this to judicial nominations, you can safely assume they would attempt to push the boundaries further, say to actual legislation.

 

[Geaux4it]

And I am sure you will be right in the middle of the real fighting. LOL. What lame statement you have made.

The primer is set. If America has the heart for a civil war, the catalyst is surely there

-Geaux

What is lame is the failure of the sheep to realize the severity of the action and the overall state of affairs in this country.

-Geaux

 

[Amelia]

This was a huge win for cronyism.

Think how many people will be rewarded with policy-making positions on the environment or labor or finance or trade simply because they schmooze well.

 

[The T]

And I am sure you will be right in the middle of the real fighting. LOL. What lame statement you have made.

The primer is set. If America has the heart for a civil war, the catalyst is surely there

-Geaux

What is lame is the failure of the sheep to realize the severity of the action and the overall state of affairs in this country.

-Geaux

Indeed. Their shepherds are dirty dealing and NOT in the herd's interest...only to lead them to slaughter.

 

[Trajan]

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.

right so, you object to my use of 'pack', oh ok,

how about adding 3 judges to a court that doesn't need them as stipulated, I already said they were not overloaded and their cases have fallen in fact ( see below).

so, in essence he and reid chose to fight a battle over "judicial nominations" based on what again? Nothing, yet there are judicial emergencies out there that required his expending the concomitant energy, capital and will to get nominated and into seats. If they got these 3 they would have gone home happy, this was the plan.

Its not like this is some coincidence either, the DC court has been from a judicial standpoint an Obama bane......they reviewed and found several obama regs and actions questionable and in a pretty stern rebuke called him out and found illegal his appointment of NLR seats while the Senate was in recess....

Add to that reversals and challenges on Financial reforms, environmental protection, or nearer and dearer, the latest, striking down his contraception mandate.

You want to split hairs on my use of 'pack'? well, what would you cal it? This was all a Trojan Horse, many of you, like you jake like to take the gop to task for waging ideological warfare and demanding litmus tests for nominees ( thats a democratic invention btw) etc etc ......well??



qed-

So is the Republican use of the filibuster today simply fair turn-around — with Democrats in no position to complain when Republicans use tactics they themselves introduced?

If so, that would be enough to illustrate the hypocrisy of today’s Democratic protests. But that’s not what’s at issue here. In the D.C. Circuit matter, which has driven Senator Reid to the nuclear option, Republicans are not raising ideological objections to Obama’s nominees — as Democrats did when they filibustered Bush’s picks.

Their objection, rather, is that these judges are not needed, because the workload of the court is so light. In fact, speaking of hypocrisy, Democrats, in the minority in the 109th Congress, used that very rationale to urge Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter in a July 2006 letter not to confirm any additional Bush nominees to the D.C. Circuit — and none was confirmed after that letter from Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin was sent, all of whom are still on the committee. Yet now, when the court’s workload is even lighter, Democrats cry foul when Republicans point that out.

more at-
Filibuster Reaction: Harry Reid?s nuclear hypocrisy

 

[Dot Com]

The primer is set. If America has the heart for a civil war, the catalyst is surely there

-Geaux

I just wonder which flag you guys will be carrying because it's a sure bet it won't be the American flag.

So, it will either be the Confederate flag or perhaps the Don't Tread On Me flag.

Which begs the following questions:

Why is it that the people who always talk reverentially about the US Constitution are always trying to change it?

And why is it that conservatives who are always talking about how they love America are always threatening secession?

I see I was right to put that rw red state retard on ignore 3+ months ago.

 

[oreo]

Democrats have proved again that they have neither principles nor integrity. Lying to Americans on many occasions for Obamacare and smoking a tradition in the Senate rules that has been there for 200 years.

Abe Lincoln would consider this administration one of the worst in our nations history.

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

 

[Contumacious]

A person is nominated that can get enough votes from the other side, now that doesn't have to be the case. Now you can get an ideological nut in place....this can come from either side.
If you like that, then it really is party over country, along with that comes the erosion of our country.

Stop w/ the hyperbole. It merely allows them to get an up or down vote LATER ON in the process instead of being mired down in rw filibusters for months/years

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4

There is no hyperbole. If democrats did this to judicial nominations, you can safely assume they would attempt to push the boundaries further, say to actual legislation.

They are trying to pack the DC Circuit because there are several lawsuits challenging Obama hellcare.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The primer is set. If America has the heart for a civil war, the catalyst is surely there

-Geaux

I just wonder which flag you guys will be carrying because it's a sure bet it won't be the American flag.

So, it will either be the Confederate flag or perhaps the Don't Tread On Me flag.

Which begs the following questions:

Why is it that the people who always talk reverentially about the US Constitution are always trying to change it?

And why is it that conservatives who are always talking about how they love America are always threatening secession?

I see I was right to put that rw red state retard on ignore 3+ months ago.

I had you on ignore since March until about two weeks ago. About 7 months. Good thing I don't maintain said ignore list anymore. It helps me be open minded. You? Ignore anyone that has a different opinion. Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[Dot Com]

Stop w/ the hyperbole. It merely allows them to get an up or down vote LATER ON in the process instead of being mired down in rw filibusters for months/years

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4

What it does do is allow ultra ideological judges legislate from the bench.

Indeed. And circumvent the purpose of the courts as designed by the Founders...and takes the blindfold off Lady Justice, and weighs her scales too far to one side. NOT what this Republic was supposed to be about.

you two 'tards jumped from removing a rw filibuster to being sworn-in wholly foregoing the voting process but that doesn't surprise me.