Washington Post: Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominee

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist

OpenMindedRealist
you not addressing several problems with this issue. The ability of the Senate to make its own rules is the epitome of tyranny by majority vote. If you don't see a problem with that, you lack fundamental understanding of government and human nature.

Well in that case, you can blame the members of the constitutional convention, who gave both the House and Senate the authority to make their own rules. I guess It's they who lack understanding of government and human nature. Or maybe it's you. It seems that you only like the constitution when it gives you what you want!

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. -article 2 section 5 of the US Constitution

It should be remembered that the republicans will still be able to filibuster all legislation, as well as nominees to the supreme court. That is hardly a recipe for tyranny by the majority.

OpenMindedRealist
Not to mention, the very same Democrat politicians responsible for this change were on the other side of this exact same scenario back in 2005

That's just not true. What the Democrats now face is a party that is willing to use extortionary tactics to get their way. Just a short time ago, Republicans decided that they were willing to shut down the government and nearly force a default on the national debt so that they could repeal Obamacare. Furthermore the use of the filibuster has become far more extreme than in any previous era in history. Previously, the threat to use the Nuclear option has always been headed off by bi-partisan compromise, and a general reluctance to filibuster candidates who were anything but extremely objectionable. However compromise is now anethema to the Republican party, leaving few options open to the Senate Majority and the President.

OpenMindedRealist
In other other posts you made it obvious that you don't comprehend the potential of tyrannical majority (or you don't care so long as you are in that majority). You went so far as to say this:

"Being able to stop the senate from doing its constitutional duty with only 40 guys is tyranny by a minority."

The constitutional duty of the Senate is to nominate and approve appointees who are acceptable to both the majority and the minority.

There is no such language found anywhere in the constitution, so your claim is totally fatuous.

OpenMindedRealist
Your childish attitude towards matters that affect over 300 million people is maddening, but all too common among progressive Democrats. If a person behaves like a child, why should anyone believe they have legitimate opinions to contribute?

Since I have already demonstrated that you have made several errors concerning the constitution, I will let it slide that you somehow feel entitled to deem my statements childish. I will leave it to readers to decide for themselves whose opinions are legitimate.

reply to post by Indigo5

But the party that succeeds them will not be the current GOP...perhaps in name, but not in ideology or platform.

Good point. It appears that the ship of the Republican Party is being steered by Captain Hazelwood! We can only hope that the party that rises from its ashes is worthy of the best traditions of the GOP.

I just hope like hell that the Tea Party is in charge with Sarah Palin running the whole damned lot!

Nuclear option?

lolololololol

It'll be a massive cerebral stroke among the progressives! (hope they got that Obamacare!)

charles1952
Yep, it's just a rule change, so was the Constitution.

Actually, The Constitution wasn't a "rule change" but, instead, established the supreme law of the land in the United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson, is a formal explanation of why Congress voted on July 2, 1776 to declare independence from Great Britain. The Constitution was written in 1787 followed by the Bill of Rights in 1791.

ALL of Washington needs a remedial course on these documents. I trust the Founding Fathers' ideas and visions from the 1700's way more than anyone in office in 2013.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

The reasons for using a tool are irrelevant. If it is in your disposal of available tools to use, you don't need to justify its use.

Then, by that logic, Harry Reid need not justify his party's changing the Senate rules, since that was always a tool available to him, provided by the constitution. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

BrianFlanders
Have you ever heard of checks and balances?

If you look up the word "check" in your handy dictionary, here is the first definition...

...This country was not set up as a dictatorship where one man gives orders and everyone hops to it. If someone goes nuts, the rest of the government is supposed to obstruct so they can't behave like a dictator. That was the whole point of different branches and more than one party.

Please gentlemen; all the talk of dictatorship in this thread is giving me a case of the vapors!

If you study constitutional law at all, you'll note that the checks and balances are designed between branches of government, not within them. The 60 vote requirement for approving executive appointments is nothing to do with the constitution, nor does the constitution mention or provide for any parties at all! Party politics developed despite the founding fathers' intentions!

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. -John Adams

DrEugeneFixer

Please gentlemen; all the talk of dictatorship in this thread is giving me a case of the vapors!

Really? Tell us more about how you swoon when you hear the word "dictatorship".

Repugs had this coming and they alone deserve the blame for such drastic action. They made crippling government their only priority, everything else be damned.

Indigo5

BobM88
reply to post by Indigo5

 

They could be *more* over the top conservative. Worse, they could be neo-cons like Bush. Wouldn't that be a trip? A Bush like administration with straight majority power to appoint whomever they want. heh.

Could be, but unlikely. As the GOP has slid further to the right, the populace has consolidated in the middle. It's why the GOP has lost the majority vote in every Presidential election in the past 24 years with the exception of Bush vs. Kerry in 2004.

Even with Pres. Bush, I would contend he was only a "neo-con" by contamination of the strong neo-cons he surrounded himself with and the opportunity that 9-11 afforded those neo-cons. He got elected not on a neo-con agenda, but on an agenda that would be considered offensive to modern day conservatives...the idea of "Compassionate Conservatism".

I'll have to admit I'm no psychic, so you could be right also. It's true that a Republican has only one a majority vote once since the 88 election, but you realize too, that Bil Clinton didn't win a majority vote either, twice, Gore won the majority vote by what...1/2 of 1%? So a Democrat has won a clear majority vote twice in the last 24 years.

However...I agree with your overall idea that the Republicans have put up some crappy candidates for President.

reply to post by beezzer


I'm no Sarah Palin fan, but watching the hysteria from democrats of Sarah Palin being confirmed for a high level appointment on a simple up or down vote would be amusing.

all I have to ask of congress is:
1...where are the jobs bills?
2...where are the bills to build and repair our infrastructure?
both of these are good for corporations, the stock market, inflows of taxes, and unemployment. do republicans know they actually might wins elections if voters got jobs and better pay?

BobM88
reply to post by beezzer

 

I'm no Sarah Palin fan, but watching the hysteria from democrats of Sarah Palin being confirmed for a high level appointment on a simple up or down vote would be amusing.

what a lofty political goal, elect someone so incapable of governing, that it would create hysteria in democrats.

reply to post by jimmyx


I didn't say "electing", I said appointing. You know, those people that get confirmed by the Senate? Don't like the idea of her being appointed to a cabinet position? Guess you'd best hope that if that situation ever happens democrats have the majority in the Senate.

Not to mention that you, my friend, are one of the very last people in this thread that should attempt to lecture about partisanship.

BobM88

Indigo5

BobM88
reply to post by Indigo5

 

They could be *more* over the top conservative. Worse, they could be neo-cons like Bush. Wouldn't that be a trip? A Bush like administration with straight majority power to appoint whomever they want. heh.

Could be, but unlikely. As the GOP has slid further to the right, the populace has consolidated in the middle. It's why the GOP has lost the majority vote in every Presidential election in the past 24 years with the exception of Bush vs. Kerry in 2004.

Even with Pres. Bush, I would contend he was only a "neo-con" by contamination of the strong neo-cons he surrounded himself with and the opportunity that 9-11 afforded those neo-cons. He got elected not on a neo-con agenda, but on an agenda that would be considered offensive to modern day conservatives...the idea of "Compassionate Conservatism".

I'll have to admit I'm no psychic, so you could be right also. It's true that a Republican has only one a majority vote once since the 88 election, but you realize too, that Bil Clinton didn't win a majority vote either, twice, Gore won the majority vote by what...1/2 of 1%? So a Democrat has won a clear majority vote twice in the last 24 years.

However...I agree with your overall idea that the Republicans have put up some crappy candidates for President.

Thanks for that. True, but even though pres. Clinton didn't win a majority vote, he still won more votes than the GOP. That was during the Ross Perot and Nader years when 3rd parties peeled off votes from both parties. I would have been more accurate in saying, with the exception of Pres. GWB in 04, the GOP has lost the popular vote to the Dems for the past 24 years (1988).

As far as the GOP running some pretty crappy candidates? Gore and Kerry were certainly no JFK's either.

BobM88
reply to post by beezzer

 

I'm no Sarah Palin fan, but watching the hysteria from democrats of Sarah Palin being confirmed for a high level appointment on a simple up or down vote would be amusing.

Puhleese...there are a considerable number of GOP who would resign before supporting Sarah Palin for any high level appointment. She'd never be confirmed regardless of who was in power.

The super majority ensured bipartisan approval of appointees - now it will be partisan approval.

Formerly a candidate had to offer some middle of the road beliefs in order to get bipartisan approval - now any "radical" can be installed to what are many cases lifetime appointments. As in this thread so will reality be, one group with certain beliefs will impose them upon another group who does not agree with the political agenda. There exists no balance or moderation.

That's tyranny of the majority or more aptly democracy in action.

That's why the nations founders had such disdain for democracy - it prevents minority representation.

Its doubly concerning coming from the party that claims minority representation (only when its in their interest) as its mantra.

This will come back to bite.

I have to laugh about those that think this is a victory for democrats, maybe for the time being, but is so easy for the balance of power to shift so . . . suddenly, so predictable, the vote on limiting filibusters will end up benefiting the new manjority that will be ruling the senate after the next mid term elections, when the ACA kills Democrats majority by affiliation.

Then let see who is going to be crying about "been such a bad idea".

Several of you need these:

The Founders' Constitution
Cornell Legal Information Institute (LII)

BobM88
reply to post by searching411

 

I went over this in another thread on this same topic...the Democrats "obstructed" more of Bush's appointments from 2003-2007 (when they were the Senate minority) than the Republicans have of Obamas from 2009-2013.

The score is 27 blocked Bush appointees, 15 blocked Obama appointees.

My meaning exactly.

butcherguy

FyreByrd

butcherguy
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

A certain Senator from Texas was vilified recently for filibustering against Obamacare. Even members of his own party chastised him.

Some polls show 93% of the people opposing Obamacare now that they see how flawed it is.

Who is the tyrant?

Not a fillibuster - only one in his deluded mind. He was allowed to speak during a no business period. Read the dictionary or enclopedia occasionally.

TEchnically correct,
But, if one bothers to google search occasionally, you would find that the MSM called it a filibuster while it happened.

The press played it as a filibuster while it was happening, so you might want to write letters to all those news outlets and tell them to use a dictionary also. I am sure that it upset you when that happened.

Not upset at the Main Stream Media - upset with people who don't bother to check their facts (from whatever source) before passing them on as truth. Such is ignorance and how it is propogated.