Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Sarah G]

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

Were any rules violated to enact HR 368?

Is the Hastert rule a rule? (Perhaps I am misremembering but I don't think there is anything to get rid of there.)

According to Hastert there is no Hastert Rule.

Hastert was the most handled Speaker ever. How would he know if there was a Hastert rule anyway?

 

[paperview]

Were any rules violated to enact HR 368?

Is the Hastert rule a rule? (Perhaps I am misremembering but I don't think there is anything to get rid of there.)

According to Hastert there is no Hastert Rule.

Hastert was the most handled Speaker ever. How would he know if there was a Hastert rule anyway?

Hastert was nothing more than Delay's puppet.

 

[paperview]

"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.

Lord, look at those silly publicans at National Review...back then:

"The judicial filibuster isn't a tradition, but an innovation; not a function of checks and balances, but a perversion of them; not an outgrowth of the Constitution, but at best irrelevant to it.

...
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist should take away their ability to mount unprecedented judicial filibusters through the so-called nuclear option, then sleep the sleep of an utterly justified defender of Senate tradition." [National Review, 5/13/05]

Rich Lowry on Judges on National Review Online

 

[sarahgop]

democrats play to win. republicans play to lose. big difference

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"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."

They may or may not be qualified, but what about those who legislate from the bench?
You fucking traitor.

 

[paperview]

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."

Mitch McConnell totally fucked the chicken.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And 3 appointed by the president.

Left that little detail out, didn't you?

????

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.

Where did you idiots get the idea that a liberal president ever has any obligation to appoint conservative judges?

 

[Mac1958]

democrats play to win. republicans play to lose. big difference

Democrats will always have that advantage, and the reason for that is the way the two parties look at government in the first place.

Liberals have a significant affection for and devotion to government, a romantic notion of We The People all working together in a collective to make things better. The government, of course, is the instrument of that effort, so it's natural and easy for them to promote its power and influence at all times., and they're very passionate about it.

Conservatives don't share that affection or devotion, so they're essentially working at a disadvantage right off. So their challenge - and it may be too late at this point - is to convince Americans that the individual has the ability to improve their own lives. That's much tougher sell, an eat-your-vegetables message that must be phrased carefully.

Unfortunately for the GOP, too many of its messengers over the last several years don't appreciate how carefully that message must be delivered, and instead have gone with a simplistic, absolutist approach that has damaged the party by alienating many.

The party had better learn how to deliver its message more effectively before it's too late.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

????

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.

Where did you idiots get the idea that a liberal president ever has any obligation to appoint conservative judges?

He doesn't, that's why there has been a filibuster rule

-Geaux

 

[billyerock1991]

In other words, at this time, and on this issue, it is your ox that has been gored.

In other other words - there's going to be a lot more ox-goring. 'Cause you know, government needs more power to ram shit through. The pubs are going to love this when they get back in and start appointing judges to undo Roe. vs Wade. Way to go Reidster!

They need to drop Roe v. Wade....

good luck with all the recall votes, when the republicans try to remove rove V wade

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives who used to hate the filibuster:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "If the Senate Republicans are not prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president is going to have a real tough time getting these re-nominated candidates -- and for that matter -- Supreme Court nominees confirmed...

...The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes...."

SEAN HANNITY: "There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."

RICH LOWRY: "Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." (2005)

KARL ROVE: "The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair." [USA Today, 4/25/05]

WILLIAM KRISTOL: "Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote. There's no rationale for a filibuster in that case. That's why it's historically unprecedented." (2005)

THOMAS SOWELL: "Undoubtedly there will be a political price to pay if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price?" (2005)

FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

 

[NYcarbineer]

From an editorial in conservative publication 'Human Events' (Ronald Reagan's favorite) in 2005:

"If we cannot get qualified, constitutionalist judges confirmed with a conservative president in the White House and 55 Republicans in the Senate, then what’s the point? Why bother working hard to elect Republicans?"

Filibuster Fight a Crucial Test of Frist's Leadership | Human Events

 

[bigrebnc1775]

democrats play to win. republicans play to lose. big difference

Democrats will always have that advantage, and the reason for that is the way the two parties look at government in the first place.

Liberals have a significant affection for and devotion to government, a romantic notion of We The People all working together in a collective to make things better. The government, of course, is the instrument of that effort, so it's natural and easy for them to promote its power and influence at all times., and they're very passionate about it.

Conservatives don't share that affection or devotion, so they're essentially working at a disadvantage right off. So their challenge - and it may be too late at this point - is to convince Americans that the individual has the ability to improve their own lives. That's much tougher sell, an eat-your-vegetables message that must be phrased carefully.

Unfortunately for the GOP, too many of its messengers over the last several years don't appreciate how carefully that message must be delivered, and instead have gone with a simplistic, absolutist approach that has damaged the party by alienating many.

The party had better learn how to deliver its message more effectively before it's too late.

.

Here's the way to rid this country of liberals. Let obama have everything he wants. within five years people will wake up when obamas failed policy starts taking more money than they make.

 

[Mac1958]

democrats play to win. republicans play to lose. big difference

Democrats will always have that advantage, and the reason for that is the way the two parties look at government in the first place.

Liberals have a significant affection for and devotion to government, a romantic notion of We The People all working together in a collective to make things better. The government, of course, is the instrument of that effort, so it's natural and easy for them to promote its power and influence at all times., and they're very passionate about it.

Conservatives don't share that affection or devotion, so they're essentially working at a disadvantage right off. So their challenge - and it may be too late at this point - is to convince Americans that the individual has the ability to improve their own lives. That's much tougher sell, an eat-your-vegetables message that must be phrased carefully.

Unfortunately for the GOP, too many of its messengers over the last several years don't appreciate how carefully that message must be delivered, and instead have gone with a simplistic, absolutist approach that has damaged the party by alienating many.

The party had better learn how to deliver its message more effectively before it's too late.

.

Here's the way to rid this country of liberals. Let obama have everything he wants. within five years people will wake up when obamas failed policy starts taking more money than they make.

Personally, I don't think that pointing at the other party and saying "hey, look at that, they're even worse than we are, vote for us!" is either good leadership or good for the country.

.

 

[billyerock1991]

"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."

They may or may not be qualified, but what about those who legislate from the bench?
You fucking traitor.

you mean like the traitor republicans are ???? those traitors??? corporations are people ??? if thats not a traitorous ruling from the bench I don't know what is... or the republicans who legislate from the benck over the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, what about that one ??? seems you wouldn't know legislation from the bench if you saw it ... corporations are people give me a break...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"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."

They may or may not be qualified, but what about those who legislate from the bench?
You fucking traitor.

you mean like the traitor republicans are ???? those traitors??? corporations are people ??? if thats not a traitorous ruling from the bench I don't know what is... or the republicans who legislate from the benck over the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, what about that one ??? seems you wouldn't know legislation from the bench if you saw it ... corporations are people give me a break...

liberals you fucking twit want to transform this country away from what it fundamentally use to be. which makes liberals traitors.

 

[paperview]

Conservatives who used to hate the filibuster:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "If the Senate Republicans are not prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president is going to have a real tough time getting these re-nominated candidates -- and for that matter -- Supreme Court nominees confirmed...

...The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes...."

SEAN HANNITY: "There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."

RICH LOWRY: "Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." (2005)

KARL ROVE: "The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair." [USA Today, 4/25/05]

WILLIAM KRISTOL: "Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote. There's no rationale for a filibuster in that case. That's why it's historically unprecedented." (2005)

THOMAS SOWELL: "Undoubtedly there will be a political price to pay if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price?" (2005)

FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

Here's some more for ya...


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).
- See more at: Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters | Right Wing Watch

 

[Seawytch]

From an editorial in conservative publication 'Human Events' (Ronald Reagan's favorite) in 2005:

"If we cannot get qualified, constitutionalist judges confirmed with a conservative president in the White House and 55 Republicans in the Senate, then what’s the point? Why bother working hard to elect Republicans?"

Filibuster Fight a Crucial Test of Frist's Leadership | Human Events

Oh shit...you brought up St. Ronnie. You can't do that in a way that messes with their myopic view, don't you know that?

 

[Seawytch]

democrats play to win. republicans play to lose. big difference

Democrats will always have that advantage, and the reason for that is the way the two parties look at government in the first place.

Liberals have a significant affection for and devotion to government, a romantic notion of We The People all working together in a collective to make things better. The government, of course, is the instrument of that effort, so it's natural and easy for them to promote its power and influence at all times., and they're very passionate about it.

Conservatives don't share that affection or devotion, so they're essentially working at a disadvantage right off. So their challenge - and it may be too late at this point - is to convince Americans that the individual has the ability to improve their own lives. That's much tougher sell, an eat-your-vegetables message that must be phrased carefully.

Unfortunately for the GOP, too many of its messengers over the last several years don't appreciate how carefully that message must be delivered, and instead have gone with a simplistic, absolutist approach that has damaged the party by alienating many.

The party had better learn how to deliver its message more effectively before it's too late.

.

Liberals don't disagree that individuals have the ability and the responsibility to improve their own lives. We just don't see the government as an enemy in that regard, but as a helpful friend.

 

[Seawytch]

Conservatives who used to hate the filibuster:

RUSH LIMBAUGH: "If the Senate Republicans are not prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president's judicial nominees, the president is going to have a real tough time getting these re-nominated candidates -- and for that matter -- Supreme Court nominees confirmed...

...The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes...."

SEAN HANNITY: "There are seven specific instances in the Constitution where they call for a supermajority. I believe it's unconstitutional to filibuster. It is not about advice and consent now to ask for a supermajority on judicial nominations. I believe that is not constitutional."

RICH LOWRY: "Judicial Filibusters Are "A Perversion" Of Traditional Checks And Balances And Should Be Eliminated "Through The So-Called Nuclear Option." (2005)

KARL ROVE: "The Senate can debate, the Senate has a right to oppose, it has a right to support, but it has an obligation under the Constitution to offer its advice and consent by a vote. And it's only fair." [USA Today, 4/25/05]

WILLIAM KRISTOL: "Congress' role in approving executive-branch nominees is to have an up or down vote. There's no rationale for a filibuster in that case. That's why it's historically unprecedented." (2005)

THOMAS SOWELL: "Undoubtedly there will be a political price to pay if the Republicans force a Senate rule change to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees. But where is there anything worthwhile that does not have a price?" (2005)

FLASHBACK: When Conservatives Decried Filibusters And Urged Senate Majority Leader To Use Nuclear Option | Research | Media Matters for America

Here's some more for ya...


1. Mitch McConnell (KY)
“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote” (5/19/05).
“Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate” (5/22/05).
2. John Cornyn (TX)
“[F]ilibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design” (6/4/03).
“[M]embers of this distinguished body have long and consistently obeyed an unwritten rule not to block the confirmation of judicial nominees by filibuster. But, this Senate tradition, this unwritten rule has now been broken and it is crucial that we find a way to ensure the rule won’t be broken in the future” (6/5/03).
3. Lamar Alexander (TN)
“If there is a Democratic President and I am in this body, and if he nominates a judge, I will never vote to deny a vote on that judge” (3/11/03).
“I would never filibuster any President's judicial nominee. Period” (6/9/05).
4. John McCain (AZ)
“I’ve always believed that [judicial nominees deserve yes-or-no votes]. There has to be extraordinary circumstances to vote against them. Elections have consequences” (6/18/13).
5. Chuck Grassley (IA)
“It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60” (2/11/03).
“[W]e can’t find anywhere in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation” (5/8/05).
6. Saxby Chambliss (GA)
“I believe [filibustering judicial nominees] is in violation of the Constitution” (4/13/05).
7. Lindsey Graham (SC)
“I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional” (5/23/05).
8. Johnny Isakson (GA):
“I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate” (5/19/05).
9. James Inhofe (OK)
“This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution” (3/11/03).
10. Mike Crapo (ID)
“[T]he Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees” (5/25/05).
11 . Richard Shelby (AL)
“Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it” (11/12/03).
12. Orrin Hatch (UT)*
Filibustering judicial nominees is “unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional” (1/12/05).
- See more at: Twelve Republicans Who Broke Their Pledge To Oppose Judicial Filibusters | Right Wing Watch

Wow...they said that?!? And then go on to filibuster President Obama's nominees to an unprecedented degree and then get pissed when Harry Reid enacts reform? Sheesh, it's like they're rank hypocrites or something.