U.S. Senate votes in "Nuclear Option" to pass presidental appointments on a clean majority

The U.S. Senate and its Democrat majority have used the so-called "Nuclear Option" and has changed the rule so that all presidential appointments, including judges, will only need a clean majority to pass.

This does not include Supeme Court nominees, as I understand it.

Jeffery Toobin just said it is almost as important to Obama's legacy as Obamacare.

nevermind

superman2012
nevermind

edit on 21-11-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

No, this is just on presidential appointments, so Cruz will have to wait. This seems to have been brought to a head by the Senate's recent rejection of three Obama nominees to the Washington D.C. Circuit Court, and Sen. Reid and the Dems have had enough of the Republicans nixing their favorite judges. Some long-time holds have or had been placed on nominees for various Federal Government appointments as well, and this will give every U.S. president from here on out a waterchute run for their appointees as long as the Senate is held by the same political party as the executive.

Aleister
...this is just on presidential appointments, so Cruz will have to wait. This seems to have been brought to a head by the Senate's recent rejection of three Obama nominees to the Washington D.C. Circuit Court, and Sen. Reid and the Dems have had enough of the Republicans nixing their favorite judges. Some long-time holds have or had been placed on nominees for various Federal Government appointments as well, and this will give every U.S. president from here on out a waterchute run for their appointees as long as the Senate is held by the same political party as the executive.

Unbelievable!
Unbelievable!
I'm sorry - this is just...Unbelievable!
If they can do his, now - and are pretending that there is some kind of moral, ethical or legal standard behind the move - then - should it be retroactive?
I think so...
How self-serving can a representative body of people get?

It just passed.

Now Obama can push all kinds of goodies.

I think it's suicide however.

Crocodile tears on the part of the Dems. When they were the minority the last time they used the filibuster pretty frequently themselves. Although I think it is reprehensible on the part of BOTH parties how the use of the filibuster has exploded in the last 20 years.

If I understand correctly, weren't filibusters limited by a strait majority historically? Have to look that up....

Nope it has just bounced around whether it takes two thirds of those voting or two thirds of the entire Senate. And there wasn't a cloture available for many years in the beginning.

As a none American Fellow, could anyone please explain what this means?

"I recognize that the filibuster can be used for unfortunate purposes. However, I am also aware that the Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority -- and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years."- Barack Obama

m.newsbusters.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Link

Senduko
As a none American Fellow, could anyone please explain what this means?

Well, just more of the same. Destruction of checks and balances. More centralized power. More efficient corruption.

Mostly, they don't want any ankle-biters to stonewall Yellen's Nomination. The addicts will do ANYTHING to keep their fix coming. The entire modern world now depends on the continuation of the debt jubilee. When the music stops, it's all over.

reply to post by xuenchen


Including muslims with ties to the muslim brotherhood like he has done since he took office and had surrounded himself with, Muslim judges in Americas courts very soon, sadly California already have one.

Senduko
As a none American Fellow, could anyone please explain what this means?

It means that the Senate can now pass a presidents federal government appointees and federal judges with 51 votes instead of the "Filibuster proof 60" that Republicans have been demanding since Obama's election. This doesn't include Supreme Court Justices, so I am unclear if those nominees will still need the 60 votes. Maybe that's the one line in the sand the Democrats didn't want to cross, so neither party can nominate what the other considers "radicals" to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here's the Wikpedia article on the Nuclear Option (an odd name, no?), brought to us by the kind professors at Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

I have a strange feeling this has to do more with the NSA and what is to come. Dianne Feinstein seemed to lead this charge for the Nuclear option. What are they really up to? It has never mattered enough until now. Why?

reply to post by JBA2848


And when you mention that piece of sorry thing for women into the question I think about Gun control, she is the champion for gun control in this nation, with the proper judges in circuit courts to support state laws to ban guns it will be not opposition.

The last straw seems to be the three appointees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington D.C., a very important court in the U.S. (some call it second to importance to the Supreme Court).

Here's the Wikipedia page on the court:

en.wikipedia.org...


From that page:

While it has the smallest geographic jurisdiction of any of the United States courts of appeals, the D.C. Circuit, with eleven active judgeships, is arguably the most important inferior appellate court. The court is given the responsibility of directly reviewing the decisions and rulemaking of many federal independent agencies of the United States government based in the national capital, often without prior hearing by a district court. Aside from the agencies whose statutes explicitly direct review by the D.C. Circuit, the court typically hears cases from other agencies under the more general jurisdiction granted to the Courts of Appeals under the Administrative Procedure Act. Given the broad areas over which federal agencies have power, this often gives the judges of the D.C. Circuit a central role in affecting national U.S. policy and law.

reply to post by marg6043


She also sits on the NSA Board. They got rid of Janet Napolitano and her Arizona leaning politics in DHS. Who also sat on the NSA Board. So what are they going to be up to reshaping the NSA. And what kind of other changes are coming?

reply to post by Aleister


Democrats need to be mindful that the shoe will eventually be on the other foot...........

Didn't they used to say that about the Republican controlled Senate?

Oh wait, they did in 2003......

''This resolution is an arrow pointed at the heart of the constitutional liberties of the American people, and it points an arrow at my heart as one who reveres this institution,'' said Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, a former majority leader who said he stood ready to protect the Senate ''against all comers.''

My Favorite quote from this:

''When you go nuclear, it's bad for everyone,'' Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said. ''You vaporize every bridge, every bipartisan bridge or every other bridge, in sight.''

Both sides are hypocrite......

Source

reply to post by pavil


They are hoping that they can keep the Senate next year, and if so, they won't have to worry until January, 2017. And even then they're thinking that Hillary Clinton will be appointing the justices and administrators.

reply to post by pavil


That is exactly why I think it has to do with NSA. The politics of it have never mattered enough until now. And the NSA is about to be reshaped. The intelligence agencies that control our government is behind this. Republicans and Democrats both lose. The NSA will get to force through what they want.

Aleister
The U.S. Senate and its Democrat majority have used the so-called "Nuclear Option" and has changed the rule so that all presidential appointments, including judges, will only need a clean majority to pass.

This does not include Supeme Court nominees, as I understand it.

It's quite interesting to me that folks are upset about this. For more than 200 years, judicial and administration nominees were subjected to up-or-down votes. The rule was only changed a few decades ago. I see this as a restoration of a traditional process.

reply to post by JBA2848


I didn't know that, thanks for tell me, now I see where the power grab is coming from, I tell you our politics are nothing but recycle trash killing and screwing this country one piece at a time for the benefit of private interest.