Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[Trajan]

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?

no, the majority party cannot change the rules "anytime they want", they are supposed to gather 3/5ths of the chamber to do that...well, that is, until now.......

 

[Trajan]

and the hub bub on the 15 member IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) being filled by obama is only correct in he will only need 51 to name them, so he can, BUT, why take the risk? That is imho, why he hasn't fired Sebelius yet.

He'll do it by telling Sebelius who to put on the board..... checkmate....

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Dream on. Once the genie is out of the bottle it's gone.

 

[The T]

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.

Dream on. Once the genie is out of the bottle it's gone.

Correct...Progs love to set precedent...and they have. Progs have been setting precedents for 100 years to destroy the Constitution, the Republic. Good call.

 

[The T]

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?

Really? Since when? Applauding tyranny there fakey? YES you are.

 

[Kosh]

The far left knows they are going to lose the mid term elections and the Republicans are going to control the senate so they want it to be in such a mess that there will be no recovery for the 2016 elections.

Although it changes nothing for Obama as he was an elected lame duck.

 

[Trajan]

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.

Dream on. Once the genie is out of the bottle it's gone.

I am hard pressed to see it go any other way.

On another note, IF the senate goes gop next year, I can see reid reversing the rule in the lame duck session , so the gop has to re-enact it if they want to use it, it would be dastardly but, politically? very clever..you heard it here first

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

no, the majority party cannot change the rules "anytime they want", they are supposed to gather 3/5ths of the chamber to do that...well, that is, until now.......

Well, sorry, Trajan, they don't need to ask you either.

Tis what tis.

 

[Trajan]

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?

no, the majority party cannot change the rules "anytime they want", they are supposed to gather 3/5ths of the chamber to do that...well, that is, until now.......

Well, sorry, Trajan, they don't need to ask you either.

Tis what tis.

I am not asking that they ask me snarkypants.....I was informing you of the rules.


'tis what is'....yup, thats ole jake the "moderate" ......if this had gone down with the gop pulling the trigger you'd be apoplectic .........

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Dream on. Once the genie is out of the bottle it's gone.

I am hard pressed to see it go any other way.

On another note, IF the senate goes gop next year, I can see reid reversing the rule in the lame duck session , so the gop has to re-enact it if they want to use it, it would be dastardly but, politically? very clever..you heard it here first

It absolutely will happen. Reid and the Dems are beyond shaming. It's all about power for them, everyone else be damned.

 

[The T]

Dream on. Once the genie is out of the bottle it's gone.

I am hard pressed to see it go any other way.

On another note, IF the senate goes gop next year, I can see reid reversing the rule in the lame duck session , so the gop has to re-enact it if they want to use it, it would be dastardly but, politically? very clever..you heard it here first

It absolutely will happen. Reid and the Dems are beyond shaming. It's all about power for them, everyone else be damned.

Party, Power over Country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

no, the majority party cannot change the rules "anytime they want", they are supposed to gather 3/5ths of the chamber to do that...well, that is, until now.......

Well, sorry, Trajan, they don't need to ask you either.

Tis what tis.

I am not asking that they ask me snarkypants.....I was informing you of the rules.


'tis what is'....yup, thats ole jake the "moderate" ......if this had gone down with the gop pulling the trigger you'd be apoplectic .........

nope, the rules of the Senate are empowered by the Constitution, and in no way are constrained by your lack of understanding. I support up and down votes by both parties. The point is that you only support it for your own political gain. Stop your melting.

 

[Amelia]

Dream on. Once the genie is out of the bottle it's gone.

I am hard pressed to see it go any other way.

On another note, IF the senate goes gop next year, I can see reid reversing the rule in the lame duck session , so the gop has to re-enact it if they want to use it, it would be dastardly but, politically? very clever..you heard it here first

It absolutely will happen. Reid and the Dems are beyond shaming. It's all about power for them, everyone else be damned.

I don't think they will. They have to have some shame left. Some sense of history. They don't want history to record them as being that petty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amelia, I think Reid is so pissed with the other side, he might just do that, without seeing how pissy he has been himself.

 

[Trajan]

Well, sorry, Trajan, they don't need to ask you either.

Tis what tis.

I am not asking that they ask me snarkypants.....I was informing you of the rules.


'tis what is'....yup, thats ole jake the "moderate" ......if this had gone down with the gop pulling the trigger you'd be apoplectic .........

nope, the rules of the Senate are empowered by the Constitution, and in no way are constrained by your lack of understanding. I support up and down votes by both parties. The point is that you only support it for your own political gain. Stop your melting.

Senate Rule XXII, Paragraph 2- If that question is decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Political gain? what gain is that?

what you (or I ) sppt. matters not. our opinions don't matter, thats why we have law and rules so opinions made on the spur of the moment don't...............opinions vary like the wind and change as often. I am sorry if this is inconvenient....."melting"

 

[The T]

I am hard pressed to see it go any other way.

On another note, IF the senate goes gop next year, I can see reid reversing the rule in the lame duck session , so the gop has to re-enact it if they want to use it, it would be dastardly but, politically? very clever..you heard it here first

It absolutely will happen. Reid and the Dems are beyond shaming. It's all about power for them, everyone else be damned.

I don't think they will. They have to have some shame left. Some sense of history. They don't want history to record them as being that petty.

At the rate they're going? Don't be surprised if their actions prove you wrong. Sorry hon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not asking that they ask me snarkypants.....I was informing you of the rules.


'tis what is'....yup, thats ole jake the "moderate" ......if this had gone down with the gop pulling the trigger you'd be apoplectic .........

nope, the rules of the Senate are empowered by the Constitution, and in no way are constrained by your lack of understanding. I support up and down votes by both parties. The point is that you only support it for your own political gain. Stop your melting.

Senate Rule XXII, Paragraph 2- If that question is decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Political gain? what gain is that?

what you (or I ) sppt. matters not. our opinions don't matter, thats why we have law and rules so opinions made on the spur of the moment don't...............opinions vary like the wind and change as often. I am sorry if this is inconvenient....."melting"

Post the entire sections, please.

And we sure see McConnell quoting this? Just stop it.

 

[The T]

nope, the rules of the Senate are empowered by the Constitution, and in no way are constrained by your lack of understanding. I support up and down votes by both parties. The point is that you only support it for your own political gain. Stop your melting.

Senate Rule XXII, Paragraph 2- If that question is decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Political gain? what gain is that?

what you (or I ) sppt. matters not. our opinions don't matter, thats why we have law and rules so opinions made on the spur of the moment don't...............opinions vary like the wind and change as often. I am sorry if this is inconvenient....."melting"

Post the entire sections, please.

And we sure see McConnell quoting this? Just stop it.

Nah. McConnell is too busy backbiting Conservatives....McConnell needs to go.

 

[Trajan]

nope, the rules of the Senate are empowered by the Constitution, and in no way are constrained by your lack of understanding. I support up and down votes by both parties. The point is that you only support it for your own political gain. Stop your melting.

Senate Rule XXII, Paragraph 2- If that question is decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Political gain? what gain is that?

what you (or I ) sppt. matters not. our opinions don't matter, thats why we have law and rules so opinions made on the spur of the moment don't...............opinions vary like the wind and change as often. I am sorry if this is inconvenient....."melting"

Post the entire sections, please.

And we sure see McConnell quoting this? Just stop it.

here, go look it up, its probably better that way-

Senate Rule XXII,


I don't care what McConnell said or Reid at any point in time, they each used the rules as they stood to their benefit until.......

you seem to have an issue grasping this, so, again-

what you (or I ) sppt. matters not. our opinions don't matter, thats why we have law and rules so opinions made on the spur of the moment don't...............opinions vary like the wind and change as often.

 

[S.J.]

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.

Obama's next appointment.