Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[ShawnChris13]

What about professional congressional staff members then who worked the levers of power even as congressmen and Senators came and went due to term limits? Wouldn't that inevitably increase their value, and their influence if they became the real power behind elected officials? They would know how the system ran. They would know all of the key players. And they would know how to get things done. It wouldn't be too hard for them to manipulate elected officials with that kind of institutional know how if they chose to do so.

I think that term limits could also produce more of a lame duck or similar problem.

During their final term ... Members of Congress could do pretty much whatever they felt like ... Especially when they don't have to listen to their voters to get re-elected.



.

You mean like presidents in their second term? I'm not even defining how many terms. But 30 years is far too long.

 

[Unkotare]

Being in congress was never intended to be a lifetime career.

Then don't reelect your representatives.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Being in congress was never intended to be a lifetime career.

Then don't reelect your representatives.

That's easy to say to a person that's paying attention. Yet there are millions of voters who educate themselves by watching rhetoric from the media and listening to everything their parents say. One person's vote can't be a solution and then when it doesn't work you just shrug it off like it's no big deal. The system is broken and needs to be fixed.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Hey, we can continue with the status quo, just don't forget the K-Y.

.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I just thought I'd add this to the mix..

-------------------

Now that Senate Democrats have abolished the filibuster for federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments, they are expected to confirm President Obama's three picks for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And that could have a big policy impact in the coming years.

(AP)

The D.C. Circuit is surprisingly powerful — not least because it rules on decisions made by federal administrative agencies. If people want to challenge various federal regulations in court, the cases often end up here. It's "a court with special responsibility to review legal challenges to the conduct of the national government," explained Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who served on the D.C. Circuit court until 2005.

The D.C. Circuit is the court at the center of the filibuster fight. Here?s why it matters.

 

[paperview]

I just thought I'd add this to the mix..

-------------------

Now that Senate Democrats have abolished the filibuster for federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments, they are expected to confirm President Obama's three picks for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And that could have a big policy impact in the coming years.

(AP)

The D.C. Circuit is surprisingly powerful — not least because it rules on decisions made by federal administrative agencies. If people want to challenge various federal regulations in court, the cases often end up here. It's "a court with special responsibility to review legal challenges to the conduct of the national government," explained Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who served on the D.C. Circuit court until 2005.

The D.C. Circuit is the court at the center of the filibuster fight. Here?s why it matters.

Yup, the DC Circuit Court is powerful, but vacancies existed.

That's why the publicans fought so hard to disallow the nominees.

Elections have consequences.

If you argue against Obama filling these seats, you argue against the constitution.

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving, Lumps!

 

[Amelia]

Elections have consequences. And the nation is learning the consequences of voting for dishonest Dems.

 

[hunarcy]

It's not like Democrats are the only ones to blame here. Republicans are every bit as guilty of brinksmanship and bending/breaking the rules. Both parties have overstayed their welcome and must be replaced with a modern interpretation of politics.

When Republicans had a chance to exercise the nuclear option, they instead came to an understanding with the minority party (made a deal) and didn't exercise it. Reid got a deal with McConnell and then ignored the rules of the Senate and did away with it anyway.

It's not the Republicans' fault.

 

[hunarcy]

Yea....McConnell kinda agreed he would reduce the number of GOP filibusters.....how did that one work out?

No, that's not what was agreed. When you have to resort to lying, you have nothing worthy reading to say.

 

[hunarcy]

Not to mention that at the beginning of this year, Reid and McConnell made a deal to change the filibuster rules with the understanding that the nuclear option wouldn't be considered. Reid got almost all he wanted, and STILL welshed on the deal. Reid won't be able to negotiate anything with anyone in the future.

Yea....McConnell kinda agreed he would reduce the number of GOP filibusters.....how did that one work out?

Pretty much the same way his clean CR deal with the Boehner worked out...the GOP went back on their word.

It's your lie. Tell it however you want.

 

[ShawnChris13]

It's not like Democrats are the only ones to blame here. Republicans are every bit as guilty of brinksmanship and bending/breaking the rules. Both parties have overstayed their welcome and must be replaced with a modern interpretation of politics.

When Republicans had a chance to exercise the nuclear option, they instead came to an understanding with the minority party (made a deal) and didn't exercise it. Reid got a deal with McConnell and then ignored the rules of the Senate and did away with it anyway.



It's not the Republicans' fault.

One side is obviously more at fault then the other. Yet the fact remains that continued brinksmanship tactics was going to result in out current predicament. Somebody was eventually going to hit the button sooner or later. Redefining our political structure and bringing more than two opinions to discussions should be the goal of modern politics. The population would be better served with an equal playing field not monopolized by century old parties that have rigged the game in their favor with media.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not like Democrats are the only ones to blame here. Republicans are every bit as guilty of brinksmanship and bending/breaking the rules. Both parties have overstayed their welcome and must be replaced with a modern interpretation of politics.

When Republicans had a chance to exercise the nuclear option, they instead came to an understanding with the minority party (made a deal) and didn't exercise it. Reid got a deal with McConnell and then ignored the rules of the Senate and did away with it anyway.

It's not the Republicans' fault.

Wrong. Reid said do it if the three DC nominees were blocked. The GOP blocked them. Instead of the three DC judges, he (the President) can now appoint 93. Dumb asses.

 

[Seawytch]

Yea....McConnell kinda agreed he would reduce the number of GOP filibusters.....how did that one work out?

Pretty much the same way his clean CR deal with the Boehner worked out...the GOP went back on their word.

It's your lie. Tell it however you want.

The Boehner admitted he agreed to a clean CR. Was he lying?

 

[Redfish]

Pretty much the same way his clean CR deal with the Boehner worked out...the GOP went back on their word.

It's your lie. Tell it however you want.

The Boehner admitted he agreed to a clean CR. Was he lying?

well, I guess if obama's lies are "just politics" then that should excuse Boehner and everyone else, right?

you dem/libs always hang yourselves with your double standard.

 

[Lumpy 1]

I just thought I'd add this to the mix..

-------------------

Now that Senate Democrats have abolished the filibuster for federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments, they are expected to confirm President Obama's three picks for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And that could have a big policy impact in the coming years.

(AP)

The D.C. Circuit is surprisingly powerful — not least because it rules on decisions made by federal administrative agencies. If people want to challenge various federal regulations in court, the cases often end up here. It's "a court with special responsibility to review legal challenges to the conduct of the national government," explained Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who served on the D.C. Circuit court until 2005.

The D.C. Circuit is the court at the center of the filibuster fight. Here?s why it matters.

Yup, the DC Circuit Court is powerful, but vacancies existed.

That's why the publicans fought so hard to disallow the nominees.

Elections have consequences.

If you argue against Obama filling these seats, you argue against the constitution.

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving, Lumps!

mmm..

Why Thank You, all the best to you and yours as well.. May the power stay on and your turkey get very very well cooked..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pubs and Dems are both at fault for a jammed up government.

I have always argued that the president, dem or pub, should have an up and down vote on his judicial and executive nominations.

 

[Redfish]

Pubs and Dems are both at fault for a jammed up government.

I have always argued that the president, dem or pub, should have an up and down vote on his judicial and executive nominations.

Including the supreme court? You would be OK with a republican president loading the court with conservatives? Or should the minority party at least have the opportunity to temporarily block nominees that they find objectionable?

 

[Seawytch]

Pubs and Dems are both at fault for a jammed up government.

I have always argued that the president, dem or pub, should have an up and down vote on his judicial and executive nominations.

Including the supreme court? You would be OK with a republican president loading the court with conservatives? Or should the minority party at least have the opportunity to temporarily block nominees that they find objectionable?

Supreme Court nominees are not subject to the new filibuster rule.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Pubs and Dems are both at fault for a jammed up government.

I have always argued that the president, dem or pub, should have an up and down vote on his judicial and executive nominations.

Including the supreme court? You would be OK with a republican president loading the court with conservatives? Or should the minority party at least have the opportunity to temporarily block nominees that they find objectionable?

Supreme Court nominees are not subject to the new filibuster rule.

Not yet they aren't. Give that a few more years tops.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pubs and Dems are both at fault for a jammed up government.

I have always argued that the president, dem or pub, should have an up and down vote on his judicial and executive nominations.

Including the supreme court? You would be OK with a republican president loading the court with conservatives? Or should the minority party at least have the opportunity to temporarily block nominees that they find objectionable?

Not SCOTUS, but . . . that is the call of the Senate, not yours not mine. The majority party can change the Senate's operating rules anytime they want. They won't call you first for an OK, Redfish. OK?