Jump to content

Dems Go Nuclear, Erase 200+ Years Of Rules - What The Left Left Out.


Guest Deisel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Acworth wont tell ya this as won't CNN and the MSM, but dear readers, here's the untold truth and story.

The FILIBUSTER - This, like so many other democrat abuses is Actually an attention get ter. The dems do have a purpose in this colassal abuse of rules and regulations. This rule has been in place for over 200 years, for a REASON. Going Nuclear was Condemned by all these democrats, Obama, Reid, etc in 2005 and the Evidence, shall we say, is everywhere. Good old Goggle will supply you with a ton of speechs by this same bunch of Dems, saying Going Nuclear would ruin the country. So much for their lies and deceat. This bunch of leftiest will do anything.

Now, how this will pan out.....The liberals think, actually KNOW obamacare is such a disaster that they need to change the conversation. They believe going Nuclear will do that, and they also believe, and its true that the MSM will cheerlead this important rule abuse, and Paint conservatives as the Butchers of Bagdad as to curry favor. Well, FACTs are a byotch. The republicans and dems are evenly split of filibustering appointee's over the last 30 years. That means, to the public school and uneducated, that No party has abused the rule more so then the out of power party.

So, the MSM will try and change the conversation, paint the GOP is false light and Dems will rally and THINK they are succeeding. The Real Reason for this abuse by the Dems is.........Wait for it......Loading the courts with as many ultra liberals before the 14 elections.....

Why is that important Mr. Deisel sir? Cause the Dems Know they are going to get massacred because of Obamacare. So much, lose so many, that their only hope for control is thru the Courts, stacked with as many Socialists as possible. This, they think, will allow 8 years of OUT OF POWER years to go by but the Good old courts will still be doing the marxist, progressive bidding. That may be true, so the Real challenge is to POINT out all these abuses, and CONTINUE profiling all the OBAMACARE catastrophe's till its overturned......

CHANGE OF CONVERSATION? Ah, NO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Lets not facts get in the way of a good old Progressive Run on the truth.

Changes in 2013[edit]

Negotiations between the two parties resulted in two packages of amendments to the rules on filibusters being approved by the Senate on January 25, 2013.[38] Changes to the standing orders affecting just the 2013-14 Congress were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, allowing the Senate majority leader to prohibit a filibuster on a motion to begin consideration of a bill.[38] Changes to the permanent Senate rules were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[38] The changes occurred through Senate Resolution 15 and Senate Resolution 16; Senate Resolution 15 applies only to the 113th session, while Senate Resolution 16 changed two standing rules of the Senate.[39]

The series of changes to the filibuster rules announced represented a compromise between the major reforms put forward by some Democratic senators and the changes preferred by Republican senators.[40] Those seeking reform, including Democrats and liberal interest groups, had originally proposed a variety of strong reforms including: ending the filibuster completely; banning the use of filibusters on the motion to proceed; re-introducing the "talking filibuster" where the minority would have to remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to impede passage of a vote; banning the use of filibusters on House-Senate conferences; and forcing the minority to produce 41 votes in order to block cloture.[41][42] These more extensive reforms of the filibuster could only have been implemented by a decision from the Senate's presiding officer declaring it unconstitutional.

The new rules remove the requirement of 60 votes in order to begin debate on legislation and allow the minority two amendments to measures that reach the Senate floor, a change implemented as a standing order that expires at the end of the current term.[42][43] In the new rules, the amount of time to debate following a motion to proceed has been reduced from 30 hours to four. Additionally, a filibuster on the motion to proceed will be blocked if a petition is signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader.[43] For district court nominations, the new rules reduce the required time before the nominee is confirmed after cloture from 30 hours to two hours.[43] Under the new rules, if senators wish to block a bill or nominee after the motion to proceed, they will need to be present in the Senate and debate.[44][42] Following the changes, 60 votes are still required to overcome a filibuster to pass legislation and confirm nominees and the "silent filibuster"—where senators can filibuster even if they leave the floor—remained in place.[44][42]

Following the announcement of the new rules, Senator **** Durbin, who was involved in the negotiations, stated that the deal reached was true agreement between the majority and minority leaders, and was overwhelmingly supported by Senate Democrats.[43] However, the agreement was negatively received by liberal interest groups including CREDO,[43] Fix the Senate Now, a coalition of approximately 50 progressive and labor organizations, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, both of whom had advocated for eliminating the "silent filibuster" on the grounds that it allows Republicans to filibuster progressive bills.[44] Liberal independent Senator Bernie Sanders argued that the requirement for 60 votes to pass legislation makes it "impossible" to deal with the crises faced by the United States.[44] Conservatives also criticized the reforms, arguing that the changes negatively impacted the minority party. In particular, Heritage Action for America argued that reducing the length of time for debate allows senior lawmakers to "avoid accountability". Additionally, Senator Rand Paul criticized the rules change for limiting the "ability of Senators to offer amendments".[44]

On March 6, 2013, Senator Rand Paul launched a talking filibuster to stall John Brennan's nomination confirmation vote for the position of Director of the CIA,[45] demanding an answer from the Obama Administration to the question: "Should a President be allowed to target, and kill an American by drone attack, on American soil, without due process?"[46][47] John Brennan was considered to be the main architect of the drone program.[45] After 12 hours and 52 minutes of talking, it became the 9th longest filibuster in U.S. history (until October 2013).[48]

On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted 52-48 (along party lines with the exception of 3 Democrats who voted against it) to eliminate the use of the filibuster against all executive and judicial presidential nominees (other than to the Supreme Court). This was an instance of the so-called nuclear option.

The Democrats' stated motivation for this change was the expanding Republican usage of the filibuster without always stating an objection to the particular nominee, such as for nominations to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[49] Republicans had asserted that the D.C. Circuit was underworked,[49] and also cited the need for cost reduction by reducing the number of judges in that circuit.[50]

As of November 2013, President Obama’s nominees had faced 79 votes to end debate (called "cloture" votes), compared to just 38 during the preceding eight years under George W. Bush.[51] However, most of those cloture votes successfully ended debate, and so most filibustered nominees cleared the hurdle; for example, Obama won Senate confirmation for 30 out of 42 federal court nominations, compared with Bush's 35 out of 52

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll at the very least agree with you that they went about this incorrectly. Making nomination confirmations based on simple majority will lead to problems no matter who is in power. They should have reformed it so you actually have to filibuster instead of simply threatening that you will since the GOP abuses of that process have gotten completely out of control. Instead they fixed one problem by creating a new one. I can't exactly say I'm surprised by that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cheerleading Begins...http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html

Wait till 14 when the senate presides in the GOPs hands. We will see Harry and Co. going ape chit and the media will be against the rules before they were FOR it.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NY Times in 2005 had such an Oh so different opinion.

Walking in the Opposition's Shoes

spacer.gif

Published: March 29, 2005

spacer.gif

t.gifhe Senate will return from Easter vacation with nuclear options on its mind. Republicans seem determined to change the rules so Democrats will no longer be able to stop judicial nominations with the threat of a filibuster. If they're acting out of frustration, it's understandable. In the past we've been frustrated when legislators tried to stop important bills from passing by resorting to the same tactic. The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes.

Since George W. Bush first became president, Democratic senators have used the filibuster 10 times to block the confirmation of nominees for federal court judgeships. They chose their targets cautiously - more than 200 other nominees were confirmed, some of them men and women whose records were extremely conservative. But surely it is not a matter of life and death to the White House if, for instance, a former lobbyist for mining interests with a reputation for anti-environmentalism cannot get a seat on the federal bench out West. The president might have taken this opportunity to fulfill his long-deferred promise to be a uniter, and replaced the rejected nominees with other candidates from the very large pool of competent people available. Instead, Mr. Bush has drawn a line in the sand and resubmitted some of the same unworthy nominees. If the Democrats resist, the Republican leaders have vowed to change the rules and eliminate the right of filibuster for judicial nominations.

They may not have the votes to make this happen. Many of the wisest Republicans are well aware that their leaders are playing a dangerous game and that they are doing it for frivolous reasons. The judicial nominees can easily be replaced. But the sense that there are certain rules that all must play by, whether to their advantage or not, is something that cannot be restored. Senators need only to look at the House to see what politics looks like when the only law is to win at any cost.

The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the largest number of votes always wins out. The members from places like Rhode Island, Maine or Iowa know that their constituents are given a far larger say than people from New York simply by virtue of the fact that each state has two votes, regardless of population. Indeed, as a recent New Yorker article pointed out, the Democratic senators who have blocked that handful of judicial nominees actually represent substantially more Americans than the Republican majority that wants to see them passed.

While the filibuster has not traditionally been used to stop judicial confirmations, it seems to us this is a matter in which it's most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto. Once confirmed, judges can serve for life and will remain on the bench long after Mr. Bush leaves the White House. And there are few responsibilities given to the executive and the legislature that are more important than choosing the members of the third co-equal branch of government. The Senate has an obligation to do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of the process.

A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that Republicans try this a few years back and fail and Dems are able to do it this easily?

The nuclear option began being discussed midway through Bush's presidency when gridlock in Washington really started to get ridiculous. But Republicans did not go forward. Perhaps they listened to the words of Senators Obama, Reid, Biden and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethics

Reality says they saw the political winds were changing for the upcoming midterm and didn't want Democrats to have that power when they took the Congress and the threat of the nuclear option was enough to make the Democrats back down from their obstruction. In this case Democrats are overly confident about 2014 and/or the GOP did not back down from their obstruction when the threat was initially made. Both sides come off as entitled brats here to me and, as I said before, this reform is completely idiotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality says they saw the political winds were changing for the upcoming midterm and didn't want Democrats to have that power when they took the Congress and the threat of the nuclear option was enough to make the Democrats back down from their obstruction. In this case Democrats are overly confident about 2014 and/or the GOP did not back down from their obstruction when the threat was initially made. Both sides come off as entitled brats here to me and, as I said before, this reform is completely idiotic.

I think there is a third reason. Obama laid out a pretty robust vision for his second term that has thus far been unable to make it off the ground. If Democrats lose control of the Senate next year he would be effectively rendered effete in terms of progressing that vision. But stacking the deck will give him the ability to move aspects of the agenda forward without further obstruction from the right, even if they control both houses.

Edited by DawgBone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll at the very least agree with you that they went about this incorrectly. Making nomination confirmations based on simple majority will lead to problems no matter who is in power. They should have reformed it so you actually have to filibuster instead of simply threatening that you will since the GOP abuses of that process have gotten completely out of control. Instead they fixed one problem by creating a new one. I can't exactly say I'm surprised by that though.

Personally, I don't like the process they used to change the rule at all. They should have done it on the first day of the Senate session, which is the proper way to go about changing rules with a simple majority vote.

I would be okay with forcing a standing filibuster as well, though the idea of a minority veto on everything makes me less supportive of the filibuster in general. Whatever problems arise from this - more ideological nominees, for example - are far out shadowed by the problems that the status quo created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cheerleading Begins...http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html

Wait till 14 when the senate presides in the GOPs hands. We will see Harry and Co. going ape chit and the media will be against the rules before they were FOR it.....

So Republicans haven't changed their position on the filibuster over the past 10 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't like the process they used to change the rule at all. They should have done it on the first day of the Senate session, which is the proper way to go about changing rules with a simple majority vote.

I would be okay with forcing a standing filibuster as well, though the idea of a minority veto on everything makes me less supportive of the filibuster in general. Whatever problems arise from this - more ideological nominees, for example - are far out shadowed by the problems that the status quo created.

Ideologues in the courts, whether they are liberal or conservative or whatever, is not a good thing. I would honestly prefer the status quo over that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nuclear option began being discussed midway through Bush's presidency when gridlock in Washington really started to get ridiculous. But Republicans did not go forward. Perhaps they listened to the words of Senators Obama, Reid, Biden and others.

Actually, you had an agreement that allowed Bush nominees to go forward in exchange for keeping the filibuster. We had a similar agreement a few months ago, but it broke down. This notion that Republicans are the principled ones is laughable. This is a typical example of both parties taking positions based on immediate expediency. When Dems were in the minority, they loved the filibuster. Reps wanted to end it back then. Now that the parties have switched positions, their support for the rule has flipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideologues in the courts, whether they are liberal or conservative or whatever, is not a good thing. I would honestly prefer the status quo over that.

It's a matter of degrees. We already have ideologues on the court under the present system. The nominees of the future might be slightly more ideological, but right now we have people being blocked for no reason other than to block them. Republicans have openly said that they have no substantive or ideological objections to Obama's three DC circuit court nominees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideologues in the courts, whether they are liberal or conservative or whatever, is not a good thing. I would honestly prefer the status quo over that.

Oh, but you'll get the ideologues. As I said in the other thread, this is the death knell for Roe if it ends up being status quo. Abortion advocates had better pray one of the conservatives gets ill or retires, because the odds are we'll get a Republican President next time around (it's just the way things tend to go after 2 term presidents), and a Republican Senate will sail pro life judges onto the court whenever anyone retires.

In that sense, President Obama and President Bush both nominating younger judges to the Court might set the stage for a much more pro life Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, but you'll get the ideologues. As I said in the other thread, this is the death knell for Roe if it ends up being status quo. Abortion advocates had better pray one of the conservatives gets ill or retires, because the odds are we'll get a Republican President next time around (it's just the way things tend to go after 2 term presidents), and a Republican Senate will sail pro life judges onto the court whenever anyone retires.

In that sense, President Obama and President Bush both nominating younger judges to the Court might set the stage for a much more pro life Court.

I thought they made an exception for Supreme Court nominees . . . . That those could still be filibustered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flashback Senator Obama: Nuclear Option Will Increase "Fighting" And "Bitterness" -...Yep, words do have meaning. I wonder what my jewish friends are thinking abt all this nonsense? Maybe I should call up Gov. Deal and get his opinion.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flashback Senator Obama: Nuclear Option Will Increase "Fighting" And "Bitterness" -...Yep, words do have meaning. I wonder what my jewish friends are thinking abt all this nonsense? Maybe I should call up Gov. Deal and get his opinion.....

This filibuster, as you know, they're filibustering these nominations which requires essentially 60 votes for a judge to be confirmed. The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes. But because they're invoking the filibuster, which, you know, the Senate can make up its own rules but not when they impose on the Constitution and not when they impose on the legislative branch. Separation of powers here. But if nobody stops them, they're going to keep getting away with it. It's up to the Senate Republicans to stop them.

rolleyes.gif

Yeah, it's only the Democrats who are hypocrites on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah acworth, have the republicans ever gone nuclear? No. The dems just did. Let's forget abt it though cause my sights r on obamacare, not this side show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...