Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Trajan]

Alito wasn't filibustered, but there was a token attempt (72-25) at a filibuster. It was more a protest vote. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully filibustered.

Ahh, so not only can't Trajan answer my question, he has to lie in his deflection.

Got it!

a "token attempt "at a filibuster isn't really a filibuster please...here , you're a politifact fan-

Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

PolitiFact | Obama criticized Supreme Court filibuster of Alito even as he joined it

 

[Trajan]

Before you make this thread about me it's about fucking dictator want to be reid.

Did you mean Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist?


"I believe that we need to restore the over 200-year tradition and precedent of allowing every nominee of the president who has majority support an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. It’s consistent with the Constitution, where we are as a body to give advice and consent and the only way we can give advice and consent is an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate."

Read more: Transcript - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter

Republicans were for the nuclear option before they were against the nuclear option.

thats right, aand so....ever hear the term; "you don't get a little pregnant"?...the difference is they didn't use it, Reid did, see how that works?

 

[Dot Com]

At first I thought Reid was just using the threat as a tool to get the Teabuplicans to come to the negotiating table. After I found out he was serious and read up on the extent of the Teapublican filibuster abuse, I couldn't be happier w/ the Majority Leader's action.

BTW-The Majority Leader (Reid) waited 4 1/2 years before reaching this point & saying "enough is enough".

 

[Amelia]

Reid abused the process as much as Republicans did. He shut Republicans out of the amendment process. He won't bring House bills to the floor.

His fault has been acknowledged. There was supposed to be give and take.

He didn't live up to his part of the filibuster-reducing bargain.

He ended the filibuster now out of sheer desperation brought on by his own lack of leadership, bipartisanship or honesty.

 

[Trajan]

At first I thought Reid was just using the threat as a tool to get the Teabuplicans to come to the negotiating table. After I found out he was serious and read up on the extent of the Teapublican filibuster abuse, I couldn't be happier w/ the Majority Leader's action.

BTW-The Majority Leader (Reid) waited 4 1/2 years before reaching this point & saying "enough is enough".

your lame attempt at mitigation is just that...your opinion regards egregiousness is simply that, the fact is- Reid after wholeheartedly engaging in playing in the game, decided he could not cope, so he appointed himself the referee and rules committee and changed the rules of the game so he could win.....


I know your happy, thats evident, so just say it; I/we wanted to win and did not care what we had to do to do it, period.

 

[paperview]

Did you mean Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist?


"I believe that we need to restore the over 200-year tradition and precedent of allowing every nominee of the president who has majority support an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. It’s consistent with the Constitution, where we are as a body to give advice and consent and the only way we can give advice and consent is an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate."

Read more: Transcript - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter

Republicans were for the nuclear option before they were against the nuclear option.

thats right, aand so....ever hear the term; "you don't get a little pregnant"?...the difference is they didn't use it, Reid did, see how that works?

They didn't because dems negotiated with them. Remember: Gang of 14.

But they were fully ready to do so, that's for sure.

 

[Trajan]

Republicans were for the nuclear option before they were against the nuclear option.

thats right, aand so....ever hear the term; "you don't get a little pregnant"?...the difference is they didn't use it, Reid did, see how that works?

They didn't because dems negotiated with them. Remember: Gang of 14.

But they were fully ready to do so, that's for sure.

uhm yes, I am aware of that. and in July the gop negotiated as well.

 

[Dot Com]

Reid abused the process as much as Republicans did. He shut Republicans out of the amendment process. He won't bring House bills to the floor.

His fault has been acknowledged. There was supposed to be give and take.

He didn't live up to his part of the filibuster-reducing bargain.

He ended the filibuster now out of sheer desperation brought on by his own lack of leadership, bipartisanship or honesty.

"lack of leadership"?

It is well known that Teapublicans blocked ANYTHING & EVERYTHING that might have even had a hint of the President's hand prints on it so spare me

 

[Amelia]

Rothman: In Their Panic, Democrats Become Reckless Gamblers | Mediaite

 

[Trajan]

Reid abused the process as much as Republicans did. He shut Republicans out of the amendment process. He won't bring House bills to the floor.

His fault has been acknowledged. There was supposed to be give and take.

He didn't live up to his part of the filibuster-reducing bargain.

He ended the filibuster now out of sheer desperation brought on by his own lack of leadership, bipartisanship or honesty.

"lack of leadership"?

It is well known that Teapublicans blocked ANYTHING & EVERYTHING that might have even had a hint of the President's hand prints on it so spare me

the tea party didn't 'get in power' until after the 2010 elections....the gop attempted to block leg. before that too...and?

 

[Trajan]

Rothman: In Their Panic, Democrats Become Reckless Gamblers | Mediaite

snip, form the link


The long-considered but never invoked “nuclear option” was appealed to at a conspicuous time. The ground is collapsing out from under Democratic feet. In a panic, they are falling back on maneuvers which mitigate immediate pain and provide short-term gains, all the while acknowledging that the risks they are taking are high and the prospect of long-term advantage extremely low.

Take, for example, the spectacular disaster that has become of the Affordable Care Act’s debut. President Barack Obama’s party in Congress abandoned the long game they had played so well over the course of the Republican-led government shutdown within days of the government reopening. When the public’s attention was focused squarely on the problematic website, the waves of insurance cancellations, and price shocks, Democrats panicked.

Vulnerable members of the president’s party in the Senate began proposing “administrative fixes” that would postpone, or altogether eliminate, the requirement that all insured hold policies compliant with the ACA’s coverage requirements. President Obama proposed his own semi-binding fix to the ACA along the same lines as those Democratic proposals only when, as POLITICO reported, up to 100 House Democrats planned to back a GOP proposal which would have allowed insurance companies to continue to sell politics not compliant with ACA guidelines.

But Obama’s “fix,” backed by his allies in Congress, chips away at the economic viability of the law. Fewer people will be funneled into more costly plans which would have subsidized the waves of sick and infirmed uninsured who threaten to overwhelm the system. It remains to be seen how much damage this new “fix” will do to the economic health of the law, but it makes the onset of the oft-warned-of “death spiral” that much more likely.

Democrats acknowledged this. They didn’t care. The threat of immediate pain was that great; the prospect of loss that acute. Regardless of the long-term risks, Democrats felt they had no choice but to gamble.

 

[Amelia]

Republicans were for the nuclear option before they were against the nuclear option.

thats right, aand so....ever hear the term; "you don't get a little pregnant"?...the difference is they didn't use it, Reid did, see how that works?

They didn't because dems negotiated with them. Remember: Gang of 14.

But they were fully ready to do so, that's for sure.

And Republicans negotiated with Dems this time around. Dems acknowledged that they hadn't been playing fair with shutting Republicans out of making changes to bills on the floor. They were supposed to improve on that front. They didn't.

Harry Reid has been a bad faith actor from start to finish.

Well, not quite from start to finish. There was a time when Harry Reid was honorable.

But being leader of the senate changed him. The change started before Obama took office but being obligated to support Obama's deceptive agenda and power grabs didn't help.

 

[Dot Com]

I think Cruz's Teapublican- approved shutdown hastened the rule change as well in addition to the Majority Leader waiting for 4 1/2 years of Republican obstruction.

 

[Trajan]

I think Cruz's Teapublican- approved shutdown hastened the rule change as well in addition to the Majority Leader waiting for 4 1/2 years of Republican obstruction.

what does the shutdown have to do with this?


Oh, and I'll check back with you when the individual mandate is postponed...

 

[paperview]

It was McConnell's gambit, as he tried to filibuster again, even after being told a number of times if you pushed so hard on these three DC Circuit judges, they would pull the trigger.

Reid negotiated with them back in July, and the goppers broke their agreement. Again.

Mitchy boy really was outright challenging him - saying, in effect, you don't have the balls Harry.

He sure did show him he had a set - now, didn't he.

Finally! Now we get a simple majority vote -- just like McConnell wanted.

Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake.
Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.

The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”

As McConnells words echo echo echo throughout the land...

 

[Dot Com]

The Senate Majority Leader exhibited waaay more patience than I would have been able to muster. FOUR & A HALF years of Republican obstruction.

Incidentally, this was made possible by one party's ability to win elections. Thats how Murica works. What do rw'ers love to say? Oh yeah- "love it or leave it"

 

[Redfish]

The Senate Majority Leader exhibited waaay more patience than I would have been able to muster. FOUR & A HALF years of Republican obstruction.

Incidentally, this was made possible by one party's ability to win elections. Thats how Murica works. What do rw'ers love to say? Oh yeah- "love it or leave it"

Obstruction to prevent a socialist takeover is a good and right thing to do. The policies of the obama administration are not good for the USA.

in january of 2015 it will end, obama has destroyed the democrat party in his effort to destroy the USA.

 

[OriginalShroom]

If only Obama had nominated less Radically Left Wing Judges, Judges more acceptable to the Mainstream, then they wouldn't have been held up.

But no.. Obama had to nominate Left Wing Radicals who want push their Socialist agenda through the Courts instead of applying the Constitution as it was written.

 

[paperview]

If only Obama had nominated less Radically Left Wing Judges, Judges more acceptable to the Mainstream, then they wouldn't have been held up.

But no.. Obama had to nominate Left Wing Radicals who want push their Socialist agenda through the Courts instead of applying the Constitution as it was written.

G'head. Name these radicals. Comon, go head. Tell us who you think is so radical.

We'll wait.

 

[JakeStarkey]

orginalshroom has no idea what "Socialist agenda" means at all.

Both Bush and Obama have been poorly served on the matter of judicial appointments.