Other Resources The Political Joe » Nuclear Option Rss Feed  
Moderators: Ron Reply
2013-11-22 11:24 AM

User image

Expert
1936
100050010010010010025
Boise, Idaho
Bronze member
Subject: Nuclear Option

Elections have consequences.  I'm sure I'll bemoan that fact when/IF Republicans can re-group and contend for the White House.  But, for now, I'm glad to see the gridlock broken.   Good Policy or Bad Policy is always better than NO Policy.  People need a 'direction'-Leadership!  THAT'S what those clowns (Dem and Rep) in DC are suppossed to be providing. 

BTW: Horrible Name (another great effort by Republicans aka Trent Lott, to scare the beejeezus out of the American public)

 

 



2013-11-22 12:14 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Master
1582
1000500252525
Folsom (Sacramento), CA
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option
I am honestly not sure that the current system works in the current political climate, but it doesn't sit right with me that a simple majority vote can bypass a vote needing a 60% majority. I know it is legal, but it just seems that changing something like that should require at least the same level of support.

While I know this happens all the time, reading the quotes from when the Dems were on the other side of this issue in 2005 is rather amusing to me. How can we take anyone when Washington serious when this kind of hypocrisy is coming from both sides of the aisle.

Sen. Joe Biden: “I say to my friends on the Republican side, ‘you may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. And I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton: “So this president (George W. Bush) has come to the majority here in the Senate, and basically said, ‘change the rules.’ Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there weren’t that many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted, and said, Mr. President, we’re with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far. We can’t go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President. ” {Note: Mrs. Clinton is no longer in the Senate.]

Sen. Barack Obama [now President]: …”hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a, you know, change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever… Uhh, and, what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: “The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of Senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next, will be executive appointments. And then, legislation.”

Sen. Joseph Biden [now, Vice President]: “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power-grab.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton: “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside-out to ignore the precedent, to ignore the way our system has worked, the delicate balance that we have obtained, that has kept this Constitutional system going, for immediate gratification, of the present President.” [Note: I thought Obama had copyrighted that one. - ed.]

You can find those and others here:
https://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/96499-hypocrisy-face-watch-senate-democrats-obama-opposed-stripping-filibuster-2005/
2013-11-22 12:43 PM
in reply to: uclamatt2007

User image

Extreme Veteran
1351
10001001001002525
Maryland
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option

50% of all filibusters that have EVER occurred in the United States Senate have occurred in the past 5 years.

2013-11-22 1:08 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Member
339
10010010025
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option
Why bother with having a Senate if we are going to turn it into the donkey show that is the House of Representative?

2013-11-22 3:06 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Expert
960
5001001001001002525
Highlands Ranch, CO
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option

It will be interesting to see if/when this is used for passing legislation.

 

2013-11-22 3:39 PM
in reply to: sbreaux

User image

Master
4043
2000200025
Denver
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option


2013-11-22 4:47 PM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Champion
6399
50001000100100100252525
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option
Drew that is interesting. Getting rid of it is just as bad as abusing it in my point of view. I say they should work for it and if they succeed then good. It should not be a standard part of every vote.
2013-11-22 9:16 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Elite
6179
50001000100252525
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option

They were absolutely against it when the other team wanted it... but now they have to have it. How ANYONE can think this is a good thing is beyond belief. It is staggering what Americans will allow their government to get away with. Absolutely STAGGERING!!!

2013-11-24 4:08 PM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Master
1654
10005001002525
Straight outta Compton
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option
Originally posted by powerman

They were absolutely against it when the other team wanted it... but now they have to have it. How ANYONE can think this is a good thing is beyond belief. It is staggering what Americans will allow their government to get away with. Absolutely STAGGERING!!!



Yep, so get out and VOTE! Lord knows enough blood has been shed to give us this right. Enough complacency already.
2013-11-24 10:32 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Pro
4779
20002000500100100252525
Henderson NV
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Elections have consequences.  I'm sure I'll bemoan that fact when/IF Republicans can re-group and contend for the White House.  But, for now, I'm glad to see the gridlock broken.   Good Policy or Bad Policy is always better than NO Policy.  People need a 'direction'-Leadership!  THAT'S what those clowns (Dem and Rep) in DC are suppossed to be providing. 

BTW: Horrible Name (another great effort by Republicans aka Trent Lott, to scare the beejeezus out of the American public)

 

 

You really believe this?

Could you explain how Bad policy is better than the federal government leaving it up to the states or local governments?

I think the ACA formerly known as Obama Care is a good example of why I think this is flawed logic on your part.

2013-11-25 8:00 AM
in reply to: crusevegas

User image

Member
339
10010010025
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option
So both the Senate Democrats and Iran got their nukes this week...How nice.



2013-11-25 8:29 AM
in reply to: powerman

User image

Champion
34192
50005000500050005000500020002000100252525
Chicago
Silver member
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option
Originally posted by powerman

They were absolutely against it when the other team wanted it... but now they have to have it. How ANYONE can think this is a good thing is beyond belief. It is staggering what Americans will allow their government to get away with. Absolutely STAGGERING!!!




I agree. It's funny how it was a good idea when they wanted it but now that the other team wants it, it's suddenly a bad idea.

Personally, from a purely political point of view, I think it's a terrible idea because when the tables are turned, the Republicans are going to use the nukular option and then Democrats will whine and moan about it.
2013-11-25 9:42 AM
in reply to: mr2tony

User image

Pro
6012
50001000
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option

Originally posted by mr2tony
Originally posted by powerman

They were absolutely against it when the other team wanted it... but now they have to have it. How ANYONE can think this is a good thing is beyond belief. It is staggering what Americans will allow their government to get away with. Absolutely STAGGERING!!!

I agree. It's funny how it was a good idea when they wanted it but now that the other team wants it, it's suddenly a bad idea. Personally, from a purely political point of view, I think it's a terrible idea because when the tables are turned, the Republicans are going to use the nukular option and then Democrats will whine and moan about it.

ditto

2013-11-25 10:09 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
1936
100050010010010010025
Boise, Idaho
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option

There are currently about 95 openings in the Federal Judiciary nationwide.  Many of the nominations to fill this openings have been blocked for years. 

I hope PRESIDENT Obama nominates 95 judges that best represent the views of a center/left society and with ONE VOTE, the Senate confirms EVERY SINGLE ONE!    Voter Restriction laws are (finally) deemed unconstitutional, woman can make their own choice about their own bodies, and Main Street gets treated with the same legal favortism that Wall Street has enjoyed.   The Republicans may NEVER see a majority again.  Take that NeoCons!  (Maniacal laughter follows)

....but then I woke from my blissful dream and realized that the Repubs will 'someday' exact revenge by making legislation AND SCOTUS appointments a simple up/down vote.  

2013-11-25 10:21 AM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Master
1582
1000500252525
Folsom (Sacramento), CA
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option
Originally posted by jeffnboise

There are currently about 95 openings in the Federal Judiciary nationwide.  Many of the nominations to fill this openings have been blocked for years. 

I hope PRESIDENT Obama nominates 95 judges that best represent the views of a center/left society and with ONE VOTE, the Senate confirms EVERY SINGLE ONE!    Voter Restriction laws are (finally) deemed unconstitutional, woman can make their own choice about their own bodies, and Main Street gets treated with the same legal favortism that Wall Street has enjoyed.   The Republicans may NEVER see a majority again.  Take that NeoCons!  (Maniacal laughter follows)

....but then I woke from my blissful dream and realized that the Repubs will 'someday' exact revenge by making legislation AND SCOTUS appointments a simple up/down vote.  




I would be more concerned that you are having blissful dreams about President Obama.
2013-11-25 10:40 AM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Pro
6012
50001000
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option

Originally posted by jeffnboise

There are currently about 95 openings in the Federal Judiciary nationwide.  Many of the nominations to fill this openings have been blocked for years. 

I hope PRESIDENT Obama nominates 95 judges that best represent the views of a center/left society and with ONE VOTE, the Senate confirms EVERY SINGLE ONE!    Voter Restriction laws are (finally) deemed unconstitutional, woman can make their own choice about their own bodies, and Main Street gets treated with the same legal favortism that Wall Street has enjoyed.   The Republicans may NEVER see a majority again.  Take that NeoCons!  (Maniacal laughter follows)

....but then I woke from my blissful dream and realized that the Repubs will 'someday' exact revenge by making legislation AND SCOTUS appointments a simple up/down vote.  

I'm always at odds when it comes to judicial appointments because I'm a huge civil rights supporter and most liberal judges are very much on the same page as I am.  However, with things like the 2nd Amendment the very same judges can get out in whacky land very quickly.

Honestly though I think this change is really a blow to the center left and right because now more partisan picks will be the norm.  So now we'll have raging liberals and raging bible thumping conservatives being nominated from now on. 



2013-11-25 10:41 AM
in reply to: uclamatt2007

User image

Expert
1936
100050010010010010025
Boise, Idaho
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option

Originally posted by uclamatt2007
Originally posted by jeffnboise

There are currently about 95 openings in the Federal Judiciary nationwide.  Many of the nominations to fill this openings have been blocked for years. 

I hope PRESIDENT Obama nominates 95 judges that best represent the views of a center/left society and with ONE VOTE, the Senate confirms EVERY SINGLE ONE!    Voter Restriction laws are (finally) deemed unconstitutional, woman can make their own choice about their own bodies, and Main Street gets treated with the same legal favortism that Wall Street has enjoyed.   The Republicans may NEVER see a majority again.  Take that NeoCons!  (Maniacal laughter follows)

....but then I woke from my blissful dream and realized that the Repubs will 'someday' exact revenge by making legislation AND SCOTUS appointments a simple up/down vote.  

I would be more concerned that you are having blissful dreams about President Obama.

 (shaking head in hands)........I did NOT see that coming...  :0

2013-11-25 10:45 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
1936
100050010010010010025
Boise, Idaho
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

There are currently about 95 openings in the Federal Judiciary nationwide.  Many of the nominations to fill this openings have been blocked for years. 

I hope PRESIDENT Obama nominates 95 judges that best represent the views of a center/left society and with ONE VOTE, the Senate confirms EVERY SINGLE ONE!    Voter Restriction laws are (finally) deemed unconstitutional, woman can make their own choice about their own bodies, and Main Street gets treated with the same legal favortism that Wall Street has enjoyed.   The Republicans may NEVER see a majority again.  Take that NeoCons!  (Maniacal laughter follows)

....but then I woke from my blissful dream and realized that the Repubs will 'someday' exact revenge by making legislation AND SCOTUS appointments a simple up/down vote.  

I'm always at odds when it comes to judicial appointments because I'm a huge civil rights supporter and most liberal judges are very much on the same page as I am.  However, with things like the 2nd Amendment the very same judges can get out in whacky land very quickly.

Honestly though I think this change is really a blow to the center left and right because now more partisan picks will be the norm.  So now we'll have raging liberals and raging bible thumping conservatives being nominated from now on. 

I disagree a bit. And I know some folks are going to get unhinged,  I think the Left regulate themselves better than the Right.  Ruth Ginsberg is waaay more to the center than Scalia. (IMO)

2013-11-25 11:34 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
34192
50005000500050005000500020002000100252525
Chicago
Silver member
Subject: RE: Nuclear Option
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

There are currently about 95 openings in the Federal Judiciary nationwide.  Many of the nominations to fill this openings have been blocked for years. 

I hope PRESIDENT Obama nominates 95 judges that best represent the views of a center/left society and with ONE VOTE, the Senate confirms EVERY SINGLE ONE!    Voter Restriction laws are (finally) deemed unconstitutional, woman can make their own choice about their own bodies, and Main Street gets treated with the same legal favortism that Wall Street has enjoyed.   The Republicans may NEVER see a majority again.  Take that NeoCons!  (Maniacal laughter follows)

....but then I woke from my blissful dream and realized that the Repubs will 'someday' exact revenge by making legislation AND SCOTUS appointments a simple up/down vote.  

I'm always at odds when it comes to judicial appointments because I'm a huge civil rights supporter and most liberal judges are very much on the same page as I am.  However, with things like the 2nd Amendment the very same judges can get out in whacky land very quickly.

Honestly though I think this change is really a blow to the center left and right because now more partisan picks will be the norm.  So now we'll have raging liberals and raging bible thumping conservatives being nominated from now on. 




It took a while, but you and I finally agree on something other than Husker football.
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Nuclear Option Rss Feed