Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 



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.


Hypocrisy and politicians have been bed fellows for centuries, but it has reached high proportions over the last 10 years or so.




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
President Obama just weighed in, a very happy man today. Talking of abusing tactics, preventing well qualified Americans from filling a position, mixing in women and immigrants, anyway, he's a happy camper. Says "todays pattern of obstruction is not normal" and "we can't let it become normal". Points out one of his constitutional duties is to nominate people, and says the filibustering of his governmental nominees and judicial nominees either have to wait much longer than Bush appointees, and he says "Enough is enough". Anyway, you get the gist of it. Obama will be having some high-five action with his aides and Democratic Senators tonight.
edit on 21-11-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


I would not worry about that now, mid term elections and next elections will be ruled by the ACA fiasco, is not chance in hell that Democrats will get the votes unless Obama force amnesty without votes (I been sarcastic) into the population for more votes.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Exactly why this is such a terrible blow to the Republic. Now the pendulum can swing faster in either direction. This is almost as bad as the NDAA, in my opinion. Even if we get through the Obama administration without irreparable damage to the nation, this will be abused over and over in the future.

The founders knew that consensus among the entire nation is impossible, and that the tide of public opinion shifts regularly. They had the wisdom to create a system where major change is difficult and appointments could be prevented if more than a few Senators had concerns.

There is no good reason we cannot find appointees who are acceptable to at least 60% of the Senate. Every time one of these checks/balances is rendered ineffective, we drift further away from the system of government that made possible over 200 years of progress. I don't even want to go into the specific reasons Obama and Reid made this happen...

Obstruction can hinder positive change, but it is the only method of preventing negative change. For this reason, obstruction was intended to be a regular practice in congress. One of the primary goals of the US Constitution was to prevent the political 'creep' that inevitably leads to consolidation of power and tyranny.
edit on 21-11-2013 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
There is a later thread on this topic which is getting response as well, so I'll link it so people can read all the comments on this important topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


We never should have even had a filibuster option in the first place. Someone please show me in the constitution where it even mentions the filibuster.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

marg6043
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.



Name one of these Muslims Brotherhood that is in the government. What's wrong with a judge being Muslim? What are judges only allowed to be Christian or something?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Obama does a 180 again....

from a speech when he was a Senator....

"Obama: Nuclear Option Not What Founders Had In Mind, Will Poison Washington "


What a country eh !!



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
And Harry Reid in 2008 says;



Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said in a 2008 interview that as long as he was the Senate Majority Leader, the nuclear option would never happen under his watch.

“As long as I am the Leader, the answer’s no,” he said. “I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country.

Reid railed against Republicans who fought for the measure, saying it would lead to a unicameral legislature and that the U.S. Senate was purposefully set up by the Founding Fathers to have different rules than the House of Representatives. Such a measure like the nuclear option, he said, would “change our country forever.”



FLASHBACK: Reid in 2008: ‘As Long As I Am The Leader’ We Will Not Have a Nuclear Option




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


the list on Obama muslim appointees with ties to the muslim brotherhood has been exhausted here in ATS due a search and find it.

He got bout 6 of them with key positions.

knock yourself out.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Obama was Senator a long time ago, when the filibuster wasn't used very often. The experience he's had with the Republicans opposing everything he tried to do has taught him a valuable lesson, and the finger to be pointed for causing the nuclear option to occur points straight at the GOP.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


LMAO....

Oh, hell, you're serious aren't you? A long time ago. 5 years is a long time? Or is this just the spin machine's response to pointing out the obvious hypocrisy?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

BobM88
reply to post by Aleister
 


LMAO....

Oh, hell, you're serious aren't you? A long time ago. 5 years is a long time? Or is this just the spin machine's response to pointing out the obvious hypocrisy?


A long time in political speak is a week, you know that. When Obama was Senator the Senate did not try to enforce policy by blocking everything Bush was doing. Obama's experience with the filibuster is vastly different than any other U.S. administration has ever faced before.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Aleister

BobM88
reply to post by Aleister
 


LMAO....

Oh, hell, you're serious aren't you? A long time ago. 5 years is a long time? Or is this just the spin machine's response to pointing out the obvious hypocrisy?


A long time in political speak is a week, you know that. When Obama was Senator the Senate did not try to enforce policy by blocking everything Bush was doing. Obama's experience with the filibuster is vastly different than any other U.S. administration has ever faced before.


Yeah...no.

By your logic, there's not been a filibuster in a long time, so what's the problem?

Democrats blocked Bush's judicial appointments consistently from 2003-2007 (when they were the minority party in the Senate. There were 27 blocked judgeships in those years. Hell, one of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seats that's (still) open now was one of those blocked back by the democrats back in 2006.

The reason the nuclear option was threatened, (not voted on like today), was because of all the blocking, stalling, and filibustering of Bush's judicial appointments.

Bush Appointees Filibustered

So, my friend, either you've been duped, or you're knowingly trying to sell a bad bill of goods. You will undoubtedly find an echo chamber somewhere to agree with you wholeheartedly, but it ain't here.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BobM88
 


Yes, the blocked Bush judges set off the discussions, and the solution was the "Gang of 14" or whatever number it was, who were supposed to support most judges and were only going to block ones which were obviously radical. That's why the Republicans never lit up the option. But then that agreement went south when Obama was elected, and the rest leads up to what happened today.

My purpose in putting up a thread was to alert ATS to the breaking news, not to indulge in an echo chamber.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Obama was Senator a long time ago, when the filibuster wasn't used very often. The experience he's had with the Republicans opposing everything he tried to do has taught him a valuable lesson, and the finger to be pointed for causing the nuclear option to occur points straight at the GOP.


Nah.

Obama and Reid are just mad and jealous 'cause they have trouble justifying the incompetence.

With all their malarkey being exposed, they are in that old *Get Even* mood.

It's hard to hide from the Sun.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by BobM88
 


Yes, the blocked Bush judges set off the discussions, and the solution was the "Gang of 14" or whatever number it was, who were supposed to support most judges and were only going to block ones which were obviously radical. That's why the Republicans never lit up the option. But then that agreement went south when Obama was elected, and the rest leads up to what happened today.

My purpose in putting up a thread was to alert ATS to the breaking news, not to indulge in an echo chamber.


The gang of 14 deal went south when the democrats won control of the Senate in the 2006 midterms...there was no need for it at that point because the democrats were the majority party. Don't take my word for it:

Gang of 14

On to Obama appointees...

Obama Judicial Appointees

I count 15 stalled or failed nominees in that list. Only 3 were successfully filibustered. 3 of them somehow couldn't manage to get voted on even when the democrats had a super majority in the Senate from 2009-2011. Can you explain to me with seamless logic how this was a rarely used tactic when Obama was in the Senate, which we know from my last post isn't true, but its now something that's been abused by the republican minority? I'm not seeing something here.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The filibuster used to require the filibustering politician to speak for a prolonged period of time. Nowadays it only requires a declaration with no speech, which makes it much more convenient. This is the reason it has been used significantly more often than in the past.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by eManym
 


Yeah, that's wrong, IMHO. If you're going to pull the trigger on a filibuster, you should have to stand up there and speak ad nauseum. This is a rare case where talk isn't cheap.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
So suddenly the Democratic party, which supposedly strives to represent minorities, have shut down the only voice of the minority in the Senate.

LOVE LOVE LOVE the hypocrisy.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join