Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[TemplarKormac]

????

1 has been appointed by Obama

1 Bush Sr
3 Clinton
3 Bush Jr
1 Obama

Actually, Nyvin, it's three. Obama has this year appointed and failed to seat three judges

Caitlin Joan Halligan in March, Robert L. Wilkins in October and Patricia Millett about a week or so ago.

Obama named Wilkins, Pillard and Millett for the three remaining open seats in June, leading Republicans to accuse him attempting to appoint more liberals to a panel that is currently evenly divided between Democratic and Republican appointees.

Republicans accused Democrats of having used similar tactics to deny President George W. Bush the ability to fill the same vacancies in his second term. They accused the Democratic majority of engaging in a “political exercise” on judicial nominations to distract from issues with the new healthcare law.

Obama 0 for 3 as GOP blocks another D.C. Circuit nomination - latimes.com

Have a seat.

Oh...usually you say "Nominated" or "attempting to appoint" like the article does. "Appointed" means that the procedure has finished and they have the job. "Nominated" means selected by the president for the job.

Like I said, Obama has "appointed" 1 judge.

Actually, you can't sit there and try to twist it. Now that the Senate has eliminated the filibuster on judicial appointments, Obama can simply reintroduce those three people, and meet little if any resistance from Republicans, who are now hogtied.

Like I said, three. Don't argue, don't defend the indefensible.

 

[Synthaholic]

So, I guess the minority should just be trampled underfoot when it suits you? So what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot? Wouldn't be too happy about it now would you?

Suuuure.

Do you realize how dumb you liberals sound? Quit throwing a tantrum and grow up. Geesh.

Ah so you want to do away with the Hastert rule and house rule 368?

The Hastert rule is not a rule. It is a guiding principle, one by the way which Boehner has not always followed.

HR 368 was passed by ordinary means, and with votes from Democrats.

I don't understand the technicalities but from what I hear, the Senate violated its own rules yesterday in its vote to restrict the filibuster -- not to mention Harry Reid's 2008 promise that the nuclear option would not be invoked as long as he was the leader of the Senate.

The Majority Leader can change the rules. The rules say so.

Speaking of promises, this wouldn't have happened had Mitch McConnell not broken his promise not to allow a filibuster unless it was "extraordinary circumstances".

He has not claimed this to be, and has no qualms with any of the qualifications of the three.

 

[Dot Com]

Reid is a pussy

His brothers and sisters call him "pinky".

They don't even like him.

Your point?

You think McConnell is likable?

I know right? He, and the people/party he represents, are the reason what just happened, happened.

 

[Synthaholic]

Note the date:


July 11, 2013, 2:48 PM EDT20915

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) launched a barn-burner of a speech Thursday on the Senate floor, excoriating Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for continued obstruction when it comes to presidential nominees. He escalated the battle by setting up test votes next week on a series of potentially controversial nominees.

"Senator McConnell broke his word," Reid said. "The Republican leader has failed to live up to his commitments. He's failed to do what he said he would do -- move nominations by regular order except in extraordinary circumstances. I refuse to unilaterally surrender my right to respond to this breach of faith."

 

[TemplarKormac]

His brothers and sisters call him "pinky".

They don't even like him.

Your point?

You think McConnell is likable?

I know right? He, and the people/party he represents, are the reason what just happened, happened.

Ugh, you two, get a room.

 

[Synthaholic]

"It is a disturbing trend when Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominees even if they have no objection about the qualification of the nominee," Reid said. "They're blocking qualified nominees because they refuse to accept the law of the land."

 

[Dot Com]

you can tell its just about making the President look bad when, after months and years of delay, they end up affirming the nominee anyway.

 

[Amelia]

Note the date:


July 11, 2013, 2:48 PM EDT20915

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) launched a barn-burner of a speech Thursday on the Senate floor, excoriating Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for continued obstruction when it comes to presidential nominees. He escalated the battle by setting up test votes next week on a series of potentially controversial nominees.

"Senator McConnell broke his word," Reid said. "The Republican leader has failed to live up to his commitments. He's failed to do what he said he would do -- move nominations by regular order except in extraordinary circumstances. I refuse to unilaterally surrender my right to respond to this breach of faith."

Did Reid act in good faith on allowing Republicans to have say in amendments? That was an acknowledged problem. Both sides promised to do better. Reid didn't keep up his part of the deal either.

There was no excuse for Reid to break his 2008 promise to the people who would be voting for him. Democrats' current overreach was their reaction to the damage done by their last overreach. They saw their polls falling in response to revelations about their abuse and they decided the solution was more abuse. We'll see how well that goes over.

 

[oreo]

And the far left shows why thy are more dangerous than any terrorist organization out there.

No Kidding--they really don't understand the danger--of Reid changing the goal posts for court nominees on a simple majority or 51 vote--when 60 was required. It is designed to slow things down a little so the Senate has a little more time to investigate--and debate. Ultimately through this often painful process you get decent judges.

Interestingly enough Liberals accused Republicans of blocking and filibustering in the first two years of Obama's term when he actually had a filibuster proof senate. There were at least 60 Democrats in the Senate--and Republicans couldn't stop anything--henceforth WE GOT OBAMACARE before the 2010 mid term elections.

Obamacare would not exist today had this bill come up "after" the 2010 mid-term election cycle.

So we can see the problems with Obamacare--all the way from the 650 million dollars and 3 years that has a produced a extremely problem prone Federal Obamacare web-site. We can see the lies and distortions it took to convince the American public this was for them--and now we can see the 5.5 million who have lost their insurance, after being told by Obama and democrats that they can keep them, and now we can see the higher premiums associated with Obamacare. IOW Obamacare is what a filibuster proof senate--all power--one party rule gave us.

Is that good for America? I think the overwhelming majority of Americans would say no. In fact according to polling data 70% say no.

 

[percysunshine]

"Legislative majorities are here today and gone tomorrow, but legislative mechanisms are supposed to be here today and here tomorrow and here next year. If a transient party majority can change the rules on a single, sudden, party-line vote, then there are no rules. The rules are simply what today’s rulers say they are. After all, banana republics and dictatorships pass their own rules, too — to deny opposition politicians access to airtime, or extend their terms by another two or three years, or whatever takes their fancy."

Knockouts High and Low | National Review Online

Not an insignificant point. From an historical and institutional perspective.

Harry Reid will likely go down in history as the first politician to turn the US Senate into a Banana Republic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"It is a disturbing trend when Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominees even if they have no objection about the qualification of the nominee," Reid said. "They're blocking qualified nominees because they refuse to accept the law of the land."

And they're blocking qualified nominees solely because the president making the nominations is a democrat.

Again, republicans have no grounds upon which to complain, they brought this on themselves with their unwarranted, unprecedented, hyper-partisan opposition to ‘everything Obama,’ where republicans put party over country and are willing to destroy the latter in efforts to attack a president.

Republican complaints are also unwarranted because the doctrine of simple majority rule in no way manifests a ‘power grab,’ as indeed republicans abused the filibuster rule to create a tyranny of the minority.

In essence, therefore, republicans are actually standing in opposition to majority rule and advocating for tyranny of the minority.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yep. This is all just a ruse to divert attention away from Obamacare. Even a first year Psychology student could see through this.

 

[percysunshine]

In essence, therefore, republicans are actually standing in opposition to majority rule and advocating for tyranny of the minority.

Gosh, Harry Reid and Barak Obama are Republicans? They counseled against their own actions not so many years ago.

Sooo...cool.

 

[rdean]

number of judicial nominee filibusters under Obama - 82

number of judicial nominee filibusters under all the other presidents combined - 86

nuff said.

 

[Amelia]

"It is a disturbing trend when Republicans are willing to block executive branch nominees even if they have no objection about the qualification of the nominee," Reid said. "They're blocking qualified nominees because they refuse to accept the law of the land."

And they're blocking qualified nominees solely because the president making the nominations is a democrat.

Again, republicans have no grounds upon which to complain, they brought this on themselves with their unwarranted, unprecedented, hyper-partisan opposition to ‘everything Obama,’ where republicans put party over country and are willing to destroy the latter in efforts to attack a president.

Republican complaints are also unwarranted because the doctrine of simple majority rule in no way manifests a ‘power grab,’ as indeed republicans abused the filibuster rule to create a tyranny of the minority.

In essence, therefore, republicans are actually standing in opposition to majority rule and advocating for tyranny of the minority.

Why did Obama join in on the filibuster of Alito?

Democrats are suffering from the results of bad leadership and they doubled down with more bad "leadership".

 

[percysunshine]

number of judicial nominee filibusters under Obama - 82

number of judicial nominee filibusters under all the other presidents combined - 86

nuff said.

Number of morons Obama appoints as Cabinet Secretary- 82

Number of Cabinet Secretary morons appointed under all the other presidents combined - 86

nuff said.

 

[Geaux4it]

"They're blocking qualified nominees because they refuse to accept the law of the land."

Does he mean like building the fence?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

His brothers and sisters call him "pinky".

They don't even like him.

Your point?

You think McConnell is likable?

I know right? He, and the people/party he represents, are the reason what just happened, happened.

No, the reason it happened is because Obama is bringing the United States to a new dawn and needed the power grab to do it. All because the legislative process was preventing it, as it should

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

you can tell its just about making the President look bad when, after months and years of delay, they end up affirming the nominee anyway.

Obama does not need any assistance in making himself look bad. He does just fine by himself thank you very much

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

number of judicial nominee filibusters under Obama - 82

number of judicial nominee filibusters under all the other presidents combined - 86

nuff said.

That points to just how bad Obamas decision making is.

-Geaux